Parkinson's Disease

Baroness Gale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they are taking to meet the specific needs of people who care for someone with Parkinson's disease.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, all carers are entitled to an assessment to determine their needs as carers and eligibility for support.
	The carers' grant, which will more than double to £185 million by 2006, supports local councils in providing short breaks for carers to enable them to continue caring. The Department of Health is also funding several projects through Section 64 to support all carers, including those of people with Parkinson's disease.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her positive reply, especially as this week is Parkinson's Awareness Week, during which we are concentrating on carers. Is the Minister aware that one in 20 people suffering from Parkinson's disease is under 40? Consequently, many carers are young people. What special efforts are the Government making to ensure that those young carers have a better quality of life, bearing in mind that they could be long-term carers?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is a pleasure to mark Parkinson's Awareness Week and to pay tribute in any way we can to all the people who care for those suffering from the disease. We are conscious of the fact that many carers are likely to be young; indeed, throughout the country there may be as many as 50,000 young carers altogether.
	Our policy has been to recognise that there is a balance to be struck between endorsing what they do and helping them to care, which is something that many of them take pride in, and making sure that they have the support. We must ensure that they are not caring inappropriately, that the burden is not too great and that they are not sacrificing their education. For example, we are making it clear within the carers' strategy that they are a priority. Within the Quality Protects programme, they have a very high priority in terms of social services. We have allocated 20 per cent of the carers' grant especially for their services, along with children's services. We have also funded initiatives, such as the Children's Society's Young Carers Initiative, which works with young people to enable the development of guidance that will draw on their experience so that we know how best to support them.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that paid employment is enormously helpful to carers in combating the social isolation and economic deprivation often associated with long-term caring, such as for Parkinson's disease patients? What is the Government's policy on helping carers to remain in or return to the workplace?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is absolutely essential that we support carers as much as we can, to balance the life of care with the work that many of them need and want to do. For example, tomorrow we will be laying regulations to make provision for direct payments, which will enable carers to buy-in the services that they want at their request. They will be able to buy personal care, for example, which will give them more flexibility and choice to go out to work. We have also raised the earnings limit to £77 from this April, which means that they will be able to earn a little more in work.
	In addition, Carers UK is working with the Department of Health on a project, for which we have great hope, called Action For Carers and Employment. That project is examining the barriers to employment and considering how we can work effectively to remove them at a local level.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should declare an interest, as I have a husband with Parkinson's disease, along with other conditions. Is the Minister aware that there is a very serious shortage of neurologists? In the whole of north Yorkshire, where I live, there is not one specially trained neurologist with a special interest in Parkinson's, nor is there a specially trained nurse.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we are aware that there is a shortage of neurologists nationally. I can tell the noble Baroness that the latest workforce projections suggest that by March 2004, there may be sufficiently trained specialists to increase numbers in neurology by about 80 over the 2000 figure. That is obviously good news. We also have the long-term care workforce team considering the whole range of issues presented by the shortage of neurologists in many long-term conditions. We are attacking the problem very systematically.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, following on from the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, will the Minister tell me at which point people become eligible for a carer if they have Parkinson's disease? Is it immediately on diagnosis, or is there a certain stage at which they require full-time care? That question tends to relate to the previous question.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as I understand it, if one was caring for someone with Parkinson's disease and in touch with a local GP, one could ask for some advice about how one might go about getting any sort of assistance. It may be low-level assistance, depending on the stage that the disease has reached. It would be important for social services to be notified that there was a need. Parkinson's disease is progressive, so we must build in the ability for local support to grow alongside the need itself. That should happen as early as possible.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether support for people with Parkinson's and their carers will be included in the forthcoming national service framework on long-term conditions? Will the NSF be introduced with resources to back its implementation?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the NSF will certainly include Parkinson's, along with other neurologically dependent diseases and conditions. As the noble Baroness knows, the purpose of the NSF is to set the highest possible standards and to establish the quality frameworks to ensure that care and treatment are as good as they can be and, by implication, that the resources will be there to deliver the objectives.

Earl Howe: My Lords, can the Minister say any more about the voucher scheme that was announced towards the end of last year designed to give carers short breaks?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the regulations on the voucher scheme for respite care will be laid at the beginning of May, if not sooner, and implemented as soon as possible. That will add to the flexibility that carers will have to buy-in respite and short break support when they need it. Families with disabled children will also be eligible. We hope that the provision will enable families to plan for respite breaks over the year and that they will be provided with the kind of assistance that they need.

Charities: VAT Recovery Relief

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will reconsider their decision to deny charities VAT recovery relief.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government recognise the valuable contribution that charities make in delivering services, and realise that the question of irrecoverable VAT provides difficulties for some charities. We have looked at this issue twice since 1997, most recently in the context of the last spending review, to determine whether these difficulties could be overcome. We concluded that no fundamental changes should be made to the way the VAT system operates. Available resources are better deployed through existing tax reliefs and the new £125 million futurebuilders investment fund. This fund will be designed specifically to assist the voluntary and community sector organisations in their public service work.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. In light of the fact that irrecoverable VAT costs charities in excess of £400 million a year, does he not find it a little perverse that service providers such as the Disabilities Trust, which wrote to me this morning, are obliged to increase the charges they make to statutory local authority undertakings in health, education and social services when they are providing services, thus increasing the cost in that way? Further, has my noble friend seen the report in the March issue of Charity Times in which the head of the indirect taxation unit in the European Commission, Mr Stephen Bill, says that there is no EU requirement that forces us to have uniformity in this area and that if national governments wish to give relief to charities they are free to do so?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as regards my noble friend's first question, local authorities are encouraged to take account of the VAT situation and to make full cost recovery including overheads when they make payments to charities for providing services. I remind my noble friend that he is right that the figure is estimated at something over £400 million but one has to look at that in the light of approximately £2 billion in tax relief to charities, £2 billion in grant funding and the fact that 30 per cent of charities' income comes from government. As regards my noble friend's second question, that article has been drawn to my attention. We have not received any communication from the Commission on that matter. No doubt if we do, there will be a submission to Treasury Ministers. But I remind my noble friend that I did not refer to the EU in my first Answer.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the amount of VAT lost to charities is in excess of £4 billion but, be that as it may, is it not a fact that charities reach the parts that others do not reach, if you want to put it that way and, further, that they provide the best value for money that there is in our society? For every pound that a charity gives, the good citizens of this country add several times more in the shape of free volunteer labour currently valued in excess of £15 billion a year. So why is it therefore beyond the imagination of government to realise that they could and should extend the scheme, which I believe currently applies only to repairs to places of worship, whereby there is a grant back scheme for the VAT that is paid in the course of having those repairs carried out? Surely the living are as valuable as the dead.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, lost a zero from his figures. Charities themselves estimate that the cost of irrecoverable VAT is between £400 and £500 million, not £4 billion. I ask the noble Lord to consider those figures in the light of the amount of support which government give to charities. I acknowledge the truth of everything that he said in regard to the value of what charities provide. In terms of support for charitable activity through tax relief, there is a saving of £360 million on inheritance tax, £600 million on business rates, £850 million on income tax and £200 million on VAT zero rates and exemptions for matters such as advertising, construction, disabled access and so on. There is quite rightly a great deal of public support for charities.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, in light of the fact that voluntary organisations probably contribute at least £15 billion to the well-being of citizens in this country, how can the Minister continue to justify no VAT relief for voluntary organisations when the same or equivalent public service provided by the public sector is exempt? Further, in view of the £125 million futurebuilders investment fund which is to last for three years, what is expected to happen after that period? The measure is clearly a sop in view of the irrecoverable VAT situation.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that the irrecoverable VAT problem has existed for many, many years going back to 1973 under a very large number of Chancellors, mainly from the Conservative Party. As regards the noble Baroness's second point, the £125 million applies to a three-year period. It was allocated under the 2002 spending review and will be reviewed in the next spending review.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, what is the gain to the charitable sector as a result of the Chancellor's introduction of gift aid? Might the Minister also compare that figure with the loss to the charitable sector as a result of the Chancellor's introduction of an extra 1p on national insurance?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, in referring to the gain to the charitable sector from gift aid, is talking about the Getting Britain Giving initiative. We are abolishing the £250 minimum limit for gift aid donations and the £1,200 maximum limit for payroll giving, encouraging gifts of quoted shares and securities to charity with a new income tax relief, and modernising the system to allow charities to certify donations over the Internet or by telephone. It is too early to say what the effect of that will be and therefore to make the comparison for which the noble Lord is looking.

Zimbabwe

Lord Watson of Richmond: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether new measures are being considered to bring greater pressure to bear on Mr Mugabe and his associates in Zimbabwe.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, Zimbabwe's neighbours, the European Union, the United States and others have voiced their concern about the violence and human rights abuses in Zimbabwe which followed a successful "stayaway" organised by the opposition on 18th and 19th March. We welcome the Southern African Development Community's decision to send a task force to Zimbabwe later this week to investigate the continuing human rights abuses and state repression. Its discussions will include a cross-section of civil society as well as the main political parties.

Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Given the continuing and rapidly worsening situation of human rights abuses in Zimbabwe and the arrest of the leader of the opposition, does she agree that many people in this country will be deeply shocked and offended that Mr Mugabe bears an honorary knighthood from this country? Albeit that the honour is symbolic, will she not consider therefore that it now be removed as a matter of some real urgency? It is an honour that has been dishonoured.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised the issue with me before. As the House knows, the honour was conferred during a state visit in 1994. Withdrawing it now is not our immediate priority. We are concentrating instead on feeding Zimbabwe's hungry and, with our European Union, Commonwealth and US partners, doing all we can to encourage a return to good governance, including a respect for human rights and the rule of law. We may well revisit the question in the future, but I have to tell the noble Lord that there are other priorities at the moment.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is the question at this stage not one of giving some hope to the brave people of Zimbabwe that their nightmare is going to end? Did several of us not raise the question of the knighthood for Mugabe and the need to remove it? Why is it not a priority now? It should be. Should there not also be a priority to get a resolution through the United Nations, toughen the EU sanctions, and urge SADC, in addition to its mission, to be far more firm in its total approach to Zimbabwe? By not making those a priority, are we not demonstrating that we are not giving enough effort and care to looking after and helping the people of Zimbabwe in every possible way?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord has confused a number of different issues. If the nightmare for the people of Zimbabwe is going to end, what we need to see is a return to the rule of law, and an ending of the political violence and harassment that we have seen. As said by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, the honour is symbolic. It cannot be a priority at the moment in terms of the day-to-day issues that confront the people of Zimbabwe and that have been raised in the House on a number of occasions.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howell, asked me about taking resolutions before the United Nations. As he knows, a draft resolution from the European Union on human rights in Zimbabwe is coming before the Commission on Human Rights. There will be a discussion this afternoon of the humanitarian situation in southern Africa in the UN Security Council, and James Morris, the director of the World Food Programme, will address it on that matter.
	With respect to the wider issue of international peace and security, which we would like to see considered by the UN Security Council, I have to say what I have said before, which is that there no consensus on the matter. We continue to discuss it with our partners and allies, but at the moment there is no consensus in the UN Security Council for such a resolution. I know that noble Lords do not want to hear that.

Lord Acton: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right in saying that feeding the hungry in Zimbabwe should indeed be a priority. Is she aware that, as a result of the destruction of the commercial farming sector in Zimbabwe, and of the poor rains, especially in Matabeleland and Masvingo, the number of people at risk from lack of food—it is currently 7.2 million—is assessed by independent observers as likely to be 10 million by Christmas? Will the Government continue so generously to provide the funds necessary to support the needy in Zimbabwe as the numbers increase?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are currently feeding some 1.5 million vulnerable Zimbabweans per day, including children, pregnant women and the elderly. We continue to have a programme looking at HIV/AIDS in Zimbabwe, which has one of the highest infection rates on the continent. As my noble friend will be aware, we have contributed some £51 million to the humanitarian crisis since September 2001. Those are the priorities—dealing with the vulnerable, the hungry and those infected with HIV/AIDS, and restoring the rule of law.

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that Dr Sebastian Bakare, the bishop of the Anglican diocese of Manicaland and the chair of the Zimbabwe Council of Churches, recently said that he felt horrified to live in a community where people could not engage in development programmes for fear of being arrested under the draconian Public Order and Security Act? Are the Government seeking to use their influence to work towards the repeal of that Act?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, indeed we are seeking to do so. Members of the Southern African Development Community will be in Zimbabwe later this week and will look at the allegations of human rights abuses and the harassment of the opposition. I discussed those issues in South Africa last week with members of the South African Government.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Inter-Parliamentary Union council meeting in Santiago in Chile, which is taking place at the moment, will be considering a new report on the arrest and torture of eight different MDC MPs, including, as my noble friend said, the leader of the opposition? As she has on previous occasions, will she write personally to her opposite numbers in all the Commonwealth states, drawing their attention to any resolution passed by the IPU council?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I would happily do that.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords—

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords—

Noble Lords: Park!

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House, if it is at all possible to do so—

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is the turn of the noble Baroness, Lady Park.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the Minister how very glad I am to hear that James Morris will be active in the matter. He will make a very important contribution. Can she give us any further detail on the nature of what she described as the task force? Will it be heads of state or specialists in humanitarian aid? Above all, will it travel outside Harare?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the task force is of Foreign Ministers. I do not know the extent to which there will be advisers to them. My understanding is that they will talk to a wide cross-section of society. I am unable to tell the noble Baroness whether that includes trips outside Harare, but I will do my best to find out and write to her.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, are we really expected to believe that President Mugabe, who has described himself as being a Hitler and would be 10 times a Hitler to get his own way, will be moved by the threat from this country of removal of an honorary knighthood? Do we really think that the people starving and facing grave torture in Zimbabwe are likely to be moved by the plea to remove the honour? Are they not more likely to ask whether that is the best that we can do? Would it not be better to support the Government in what they are doing?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can only agree with my noble friend.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are well past time now. We should move on to the next Question.

Commercial Activities in Schools

Lord Clement-Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their policy on promotion of food and confectionery products direct to school children; and what are the circumstances in which schools, local education authorities and government departments may collaborate with manufacturers in such promotions.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the department, the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers and the Consumers' Association issued updated guidelines entitled, Best Practice Principles for Commercial Activities in Schools, in October 2001. These guidelines cover commercial sponsorship in schools by snack-food companies and help teachers and governors to make informed, sensible decisions about the nature of business involvement in schools. They also help schools to determine whether the education benefits outweigh the disadvantages of commercial activities.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, there is currently a virtual epidemic of obesity among children. The Department of Health has quite rightly encouraged certain national initiatives such as the national school fruit scheme. Is it not extraordinary, in the face of that, that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and indeed the Minister for Sport himself, have endorsed a recent direct marketing scheme designed to encourage children to eat more chocolate—a scheme which is promoted through schools? Therefore, are not the department's guidelines inadequate? Should they not prevent the direct marketing to schoolchildren of fatty and sugary foods?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord refers to the Cadbury initiative with the Youth Sport Trust. My right honourable friend Richard Caborn has endorsed the initiative, as indeed has the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross—who is not in her place—in her capacity as chair of the All-Party Corporate Social Responsibility Group, by saying that this is a good example of a carefully crafted corporate social responsibility initiative. Within the context of the guidance that we have produced, it is important to ensure that we have the opportunity to work closely with business. We believe that this is a good initiative.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, what attention is paid to health guidelines, particularly in regard to dental health? I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in so far as chocolate is much better for the teeth than any other form of sweet. I wonder whether the initiatives are taking that into consideration.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, on a personal level, I am delighted to hear that chocolate is less bad for teeth than other sweets. More seriously, it is important that health considerations are taken into account. I draw the attention of the House to the specific point that this is not about government telling children in schools and their parents what they should do in regard to different kinds of food products. It is about teaching our children to have a health lifestyle and to have an appropriate response and approach to sweets and to other foods. We believe that this is the way to approach the matter.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that perhaps the fault lies with parents, who give their children far too much pocket money?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House says, "Not in Scotland, they don't"! I have a feeling that my children would probably echo that in St Albans.
	There are issues in regard to parental responsibility. One of the pieces of information that I gathered in preparing for this Question was that there is research to indicate that children, on the way to and from school, are likely to spend up to £1.50 on sweets and snacks. We have a big job to do. I do not in any way suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in raising the issues that there are not important elements in this. However, the initiative about which he was particularly concerned has worked hard to ensure that, for example, there will be no branding on sports equipment in schools by any chocolate manufacturer. It is about training for teachers as well and should therefore be supported in that context.

Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the real issue relates to changing eating habits among schoolchildren, and that the "five a day" and "fruit in schools" projects, which are promoted through the New Opportunities Fund, are having excellent results? We are told that children are now asking for an apple in their lunchbox instead of chocolates or crisps.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I pay tribute to the "five a day" scheme, which has reached parts of the country that other initiatives do not often reach. Indeed, we have support in terms of fruit for our youngest children, through healthy school standards, and through the work that we are doing with the Food Standards Agency to monitor compliance in terms of the impact of nutritional standards on school lunches. These are all part of a rather complex whole to try to ensure that our children grow up with the right balance between their desire to enjoy themselves in terms of the food that they eat, but, most importantly, to recognise what is healthy and good for them.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, quite apart from advertising, is the Minister aware that a recent book—a very thoughtful book—by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury points out the great dangers of allowing young children to become the targets of commercial advertising before they have the maturity to make judgments between the different products advertised? Will the Minister draw the attention of her right honourable friend the Secretary of State to that book? I personally think that it is very important, as I am sure the Minister does if she has read it.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I will indeed draw my right honourable friend's attention to the book. It is important in this context to ensure that we give our children all that they need to understand and deal with the plethora of advertising, particularly at Christmas time. It is important that children are able to understand what this is about and to make reasoned and sensible judgments. I do not believe that this is about banning things; I believe it is about giving them the kind of ammunition they need to make the decisions for themselves, based on an understanding about health and about what advertising seeks to do. If we could do that, we should equip them well for life.

European Parliament (Representation) Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	Clause 14 [The Gibraltar register]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 8, line 6, after "Assembly" insert "of Gibraltar"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Regulations relating to sections 14 to 16]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 9, line 22, leave out "this section" and insert "section 16"

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment formally and the other amendments in the group.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, although the Minister seeks to move all the amendments formally, just to prove that I have read the amendments with great care, I should like to express my serious concerns about Amendment No. 3. It suggests that Clause 14 contains a definition of the words "the European electoral registration officer". It does not. It states that the holder of one particular office—namely, the—

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. The Question before the House is Whether Amendment No. 2 shall be agreed to? The noble Lord wishes to speak to Amendment No. 3.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the Minister did say that he was moving all the amendments formally.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I must put the Question in any case: it is Whether Amendment No. 2 shall be agreed to?

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am sorry for being out of order. The Bill states that the Clerk to the House of Assembly shall be the European electoral registration officer. That is not a definition of what the European electoral registration officer is. It is saying that the holder of one office—namely, the Clerk to the House of Assembly—is also the holder of a different office, that of European electoral registration officer. It seems to me, therefore, that the appropriate wording would have been not "within the meaning of", as in the amendment, but "as specified by". The Minister will be glad, however, to know that I do not intend to press this issue to a Division.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I apologise for the fact that I was not in my place when the amendment was first called. But I understand that the noble Lord from the Liberal Front Bench has spoken to the amendment and I take it that I am entitled to do the same.
	I have wondered quite often why this Bill is in front of us without getting a clear answer either from my own resources or from Ministers. On reading through the three days of Committee stage, I came to the conclusion—I have made this point before—that gobbledy and gook have met together and made the language incomprehensible. In my view, my noble friend Lord Waddington asked the key question which has not yet been answered; namely, that the assemblies, if and when they happen, will have no new funds and no new powers from either central government—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we are not on that Bill yet.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am sorry. I thought that we were discussing Amendment No. 2.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord believes that we are on the next item of business.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I beg the pardon of the noble Baroness. I have been caught before, unfortunately, by an unexpected speed with which your Lordships handle certain business. I was very confused on that occasion and my fear that I had made the same mistake again led me to make a mistake of a different kind. I apologise. I await my turn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I guess that I ought to apologise to your Lordships' House. I thought, and the notes that I had been given indicated, that there was very little controversy this afternoon associated with this Bill. For that reason, I took a liberty in moving the amendments formally. I shall address Amendment No. 3 because the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has raised it. My apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for exercising him in the way in which he was exercising his knowledge about a Bill which we were not discussing.
	Amendment No. 3 looks at Clause 14. This was amended in Grand Committee to replace the early arrangements for appointing the European electoral registration officer for Gibraltar with a simple statement that the Clerk to the House of Assembly for Gibraltar should be the electoral registration officer for Gibraltar. The reference in Clause 20 in the new Section 6(5)(b) of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 to the ERO appointed under Clause 14 of the Bill is, therefore, no longer appropriate. It is for that reason that Amendment No. 3 replaces it with a more suitable reference.
	I hope that that answers the point made by the noble Lord. If not, I shall follow up his point happily outside the Chamber. All the amendments in this group are essentially simple, technical and have been uncontroversially argued through. I think that they were looked for and to be welcomed this afternoon.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 20 [Returning officers]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 11, line 2, leave out "appointed under" and insert "(within the meaning of"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 23 [Jurisdiction of courts]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 12, line 9, at beginning insert "Without prejudice to the generality of the power under which it is made,"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 28 [Short title, extent and commencement]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 14, line 11, leave out "22" and insert "24"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister and the Liberal Democrats for their co-operation. The Bill is very good news for the people of Gibraltar. We wish it well.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I echo that support for the Bill. We are very glad to see that Gibraltar will now get the vote in the European elections.
	On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill

Report received.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
	"PURPOSE OF THE BILL
	The purpose of this Bill is to provide voters with a choice as to the establishment of regional assemblies in their region and as to options for change in the organisation of local government."

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12 with which it is grouped. It will be fairly obvious to noble Lords that the two amendments have been drafted by different hands. Amendment No. 1 is far less detailed—indeed, I may say far less refined—but it enables me to explain the approach of these Benches at this stage.
	At the previous stage, we made it clear that we had considerable problems with the Bill. I want to be clear with noble Lords that we have discussed with Ministers and found a way which, if the House agrees, will take forward the possibility of regional government in a way which we, certainly, regard as far more appropriate.
	I should also like noble Lords to be clear as to why. The Minister has made it plain that if we had pressed for every change that we wanted, including—indeed, in particular—the retention of two-tier local government in regions which opt for regional government, Her Majesty's Government would have resisted that approach. That would have meant that the Bill, the first step towards regional government, would have been lost or that the Parliament Act would have been applied and we should have had the Bill in its original form which, as I have said, is not one which we regarded with any great enthusiasm.
	We have long been enthusiastic on these Benches for regional government where it is wanted. We are aware that here our policy differs sharply from that of the Conservatives, although I have absolutely no doubt that they, too, are anxious to improve the Bill. In some cases, improvement to the Bill in their terms would not be quite the same as our terms. However, I accept that we have expressed similar thinking on some amendments.
	We differ from Her Majesty's Government, in particular, in that we do not regard the reorganisation of local government as appropriately dealt with as part of the introduction of regional government. We still regard it as a separate issue. However, we are clear, and the Minister was clear with the House at the previous stage, that No. 10 has set strict constraints on what it is possible to do regarding local government—the number of tiers or, as I have often said, perhaps tediously, spheres. It is important to take forward the prospect of regional government and to build on past co-operation between these Benches and the Labour Party—Her Majesty's Government—on matters of constitutional reform.
	The simple aim in Amendment No. 12 is to give people living in two-tier areas a say about local government structure. Therefore, we propose two questions—technically, as noble Lords will see, two ballots. Residents in those areas will be asked a second contemporaneous question and will be given a choice between at least two options for local government in their area. All the options will be for unitary government. It is clear that the retention of two-tier government could not be achieved.
	That means that only those affected will be entitled to vote. Therefore, the big conurbations cannot dictate to other areas the form of local government in their area if regional government goes ahead. I accept that voters in urban areas, which are now unitary, could impose a change by the outcome of the question regarding regional assemblies. But which change will be a matter of local choice. For the first time ever local people will have a vote with regard to their form of local government.
	There are three additional points, some of which we shall cover later in more detail. It is appropriate to refer briefly to them as they are part of our overall approach. The Government have agreed that the boundaries of existing unitary authorities can be considered by the Boundary Committee for England if those councils wish them to be considered. That will mean that possible nonsenses, to which some of your Lordships referred at the previous stage, can be avoided.
	I turn to the publication of a draft powers Bill before the first referendum. I am assured that the Government will do their best to have a Bill published with a view to pre-legislative scrutiny. I understand that the Government by definition cannot foresee the unforeseeable—for instance, urgent matters coming out of nowhere that may take up parliamentary counsel's time—but I have no doubt of the Government's good faith in this matter.
	There is confirmation that the White Paper is not the final word on powers to be devolved. On 25th March the Minister gave a helpful answer to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, confirming that,
	"the Government are keen further to decentralise responsibility for policy and delivery where this will improve regional outcomes. There are likely to be further proposals for the decentralisation of responsibilities to elected regional assemblies as time goes on".—[Official Report, 25/3/03; col. WA 67.]
	I believe that the answer referred to paragraph 4(5) of the White Paper. Last time we were all exercised in trying to hunt down that point. Indeed, the Minister responsible for local government has confirmed that after some years' experience of the Greater London Authority, its powers will be reviewed and it would be logical for such a review to consider the powers of regional assemblies also.
	Turning to how Clause 12 will work, subsections (1) and (2) require that if there is a referendum about establishing an elected assembly, there must also be a referendum in each county area, the second referendum being about the government options for unitary local government in the county area. Subsections (3) and (4) define a county area, which in the main will be the existing area of a county council—of course containing districts—but recognising that some of the proposed options for single-tier authorities may mean reorganisation across county boundaries. In that case the clause provides that all county areas affected may be combined into a single county area for the purposes of the referendum and voters in that combined area will vote on a common referendum on the local government structure.
	Subsection (5) requires the government options to be based on recommendations by the Boundary Committee for England and must include, as I have said, at least two different unitary options. The Government propose an amendment to insert a new clause requiring the Boundary Committee's recommendations to contain two or more options. These amendments, taken together, mean that options put to voters will be based, as we have already discussed, on an independent review. As part of that review people will be able to make their case for a particular structure.
	Subsection (6) means that wherever there is a referendum about whether to establish an elected assembly, the local government options have to be put to voters on the same day. In practice that may mean a single ballot paper, but that is not a matter that we need to consider now.
	Subsection (7) prevents the Secretary of State from making an order to hold the referendum until six weeks after he has the Boundary Committee's recommendations, in order to give an opportunity for people to make representations about the recommendations.
	Subsection (8) gives the Secretary of State, with Parliament's approval, the power to vary an order for a referendum about local government, independently on an order for a referendum on an elected assembly—for example, to make minor corrections to the description of the options for a county area—but he cannot revoke an order for a local referendum without also revoking the order for the regional referendum. In other words, the Secretary of State cannot cancel a local government referendum while a regional one is taking place.
	Subsection (9) allows the Secretary of State to make an order about local government referendums, setting the rules, the way in which the options are set out and other matters. An order-making power is needed because the options, of course, will vary from region to region. Compared with putting the arrangements on the face of the Bill, it provides a little more time to work out the best arrangements for local referendums. Subsection (10) includes lists of specific matters for the order.
	I do not intend to press the "purpose" clause—Amendment No. 1—which was described to me late last week as "post-modern", unless the Minister thinks that this is very classical and something that would benefit the Bill. In due course, I shall move Amendment No. 12 as a significant strengthening of the Bill. It may not be regional government as we on the Liberal Democrat Benches would have chosen, but it is much improved from what was on offer two weeks ago. I am most grateful to the Minister for the work that he and his officials have undertaken to enable us to arrive at this point. I beg to move.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment which appears to be an important step forward, allowing people the opportunity to say what form of unitary local government they want in their areas. I rise for one reason. I have had the opportunity to read the full letter written to interested Members by the Minister. I thank him for that letter. He has intimated his preparedness to accept the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, but I notice that subsection (5) of Amendment No. 12 says that the Boundary Committee should be required to set out "at least two options". The Minister in his letter says that he has it in mind to ask the Boundary Committee to produce two recommendations or more if it thinks appropriate. Would it be simpler to ask the committee to list all viable options? I am unsure why it should be limited to two. I am glad that the Minister does not accept that that is the right result. I cannot see why there should not be a requirement on the committee to list all the viable options.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt the letter said "at least two options"; it did not foreclose on any other options. There is a choice. It is up to the Boundary Committee to do that and not the Government. The words "at least" allow for the possibility of more.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I agree entirely with the Minister, that that is better than to limit the committee to just two. I wonder whether it should be said boldly to the committee that it should list all viable options for having unitary local government in a particular area.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am a little less sanguine about this amendment than my noble friend Lord Waddington. I see more mischief in it than he has. Over the weekend there was a small amount of publicity that I assume arose from the Liberal Democrats' publicity drive, crowing that, as a result of the agreement by the Government to take up their amendment on restructuring unitary government, regional government was now assured. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has now reiterated that. As we knew from the Liberal Democrats, that is what they have been out for all the time. Their views on these proposals are now nailed to the mast, although there has been little doubt about that all along.
	What do the amendments amount to? In all honesty, they are the nail in the coffin of the county councils. They finally dispel any possibility of the status quo—I acknowledge that the Minister has not been in favour of that—in terms of the local government structure continuing. I thought that that was an option under regional government in which the Liberal Democrats were interested, with the county councils being protected. Having accepted the amendments, it is clear that the Government no longer see any role for the counties in their present form, despite declaring that they were neutral on their continuation.
	The amendment follows on from one tabled in Committee when the Liberal Democrats sought to have a second question asked in county and district areas only: whether the electors were in favour of county and district councils being organised into a single unitary tier of local government. It was one that sought to decouple the reorganisation of local government from the question on regional government. As worded, it might just have had our support because it would have elicited a "Yes" or "No" answer. It was also designed to prevent county and districts being overwhelmed by a vote from the metropolitan and shire areas, a point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
	But the amendment goes far further than that. It asks for views on options for the reform of local government only. There is no chance to vote against reform. Even before a vote on regional government has been decided, voters are asked to decide how the counties and districts should be divided up to form unitary government. As I understand it, there will not even be a second question that asks, "Are you in favour of local government reform?". The two questions will be, "Are you in favour of regional government?" and "Which form of regional government are you going to vote for?", under which there will be several options.
	Under the second question there is no possibility that county councils, in particular, can survive in their current form—even if an option were put forward to make a unitary from their boundaries. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who, I notice, is not in his place today—I beg his pardon; he is present. He seemed to have some feeling for the counties' position. But, if he has accepted this amendment as likely to help him out, I say to him that he has been sold a pup. Unitary government will willy-nilly come out of this. County councils cannot survive, and it is the Liberal Democrats, along with the Government, who will have ensured their demise.
	We have tabled amendments both in Committee and today to ensure that information is available about the powers, structures and costs of regional government. But similar information, not just maps of boundaries, will now have to be made available for unitary authorities, since now we have no idea what unitary government will do. In general, it will have to absorb the powers and responsibilities of county councils, taking on, for example, social services, waste disposal, highways and the other county council responsibilities. Any unitary county council left will provide only its share of those services. It will not provide them for its related districts, as in the past.
	The alternatives offered here are as puff and smoke. We are totally opposed to what the amendments will do.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I fear that I have put my case very badly. I am not quarrelling with the case that she put forward. I do not want to see any local government changes at all. I certainly do not want to see the disappearance of counties. But, assuming that the Government will not resile from their determination to use their voting power to ensure that the price of having a referendum is to have unitary local government, does not my noble friend agree with me that, if we are eventually left in that position, it is better that local people should have the opportunity to choose what form of unitary government they should have than be denied it? I will certainly not vote for this amendment if it will foreclose the opportunity for us to insist once more that there should be no change in the local government structure at all.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, noticed that I am in my place, but she did not remark on the fact that I have moved my place since Committee stage. It is with very great regret that I say that the reason I have done so is that I cannot support the amendments tabled by my noble friend today. There has been some vigorous discussion about the matter. My view turned out to be a minority one within our team in this House and in the House of Commons. With considerable regret, therefore, I have withdrawn from the team on this Bill.
	I live and am politically active in a two-tier area, so perhaps I look at life from a perspective different from that of those from London and metropolitan areas—or some of them anyhow. I declare that as an interest. Like my noble friend, I shall refer to other amendments on the Marshalled List that are part of a package negotiated between members of my party and the Government—there is no secret about that. The meaning of the amendments moved by my noble friend can be understood only by looking at them in the context of the package.
	The crunch is whether people in areas that are to have referendums on regional assemblies, as proposed by the Government, have the democratic option to decide for themselves and not be told by the Minister, 10 Downing Street or anyone else that two-tier local government is not allowed. I would hardly wish to refer to the proposal as regional government, as the proposals are such feeble affairs. We debated that issue vigorously in Committee. It is the issue on which, I believe, the negotiated deal sells the pass.
	In Committee, when I spoke from the Front Bench on behalf of my party, I responded to some fairly vigorous comments by the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said:
	"If this measure is decoupled, there will not be a referendum because there will not be a Bill. We shall take it away. That is the price to be paid. It is as simple as that . . . If you want to kill the Bill, carry on".
	Later the Minister referred to those words as being his "mantra". Throughout the three days of Committee stage he kept saying that it was the mantra and that was that. On behalf—I thought—of my own party, I said:
	"We now have threats, bluster and blackmail from the Minister—not rational argument".
	I added:
	"The Minister's attitude is not acceptable . . . We are being threatened that if we do what we believe is right, the Government will take their bat and ball home. If it comes to that, do not blame us. The responsibility would clearly rest with the Government. It is arrogance of the highest order".
	Later I said that the Minister was browbeating us:
	"The Liberal Democrats will not be brow-beaten in every instance. If he is saying that if your Lordships' House stands firm on such issues he will not get his legislation, then we might as well all pack up and go home".—[Official Report, 13/3/03; cols. 1515-16.]
	I repeat those words at some length because I believed then that I was speaking on behalf of my party. After I spoke, I was not given an indication that I had not been speaking on behalf of my party. But I believe that my party has, regrettably, now agreed to be blackmailed, bullied and browbeaten.
	Even if a compromise on the Bill were necessary at the end of the process, it was wholly wrong not to test the opinion of the House, at the very least, on those important issues and to negotiate from strength on that basis instead of having the negotiations that took place. I do not blame my noble friend Lady Hamwee for what I think is a very sad series of events. I blame Ed Davey and my colleagues in the House of Commons, and I am happy to stand up in public and say that. I believe that in my part of the world, and in other parts of the world, too, Liberal Democrats will believe that they have been let down on this issue by their parliamentary representatives. In the press statement which the party put out, Ed Davey is quoted as saying:
	"These concessions prevent the absurd situation whereby voters unaffected by local government reform would effectively be imposing changes on voters elsewhere in the region".
	That is not true. The amendments do not prevent that. All that they do is give those voters a choice. If they believe that unitary government is some form of hell, it gives them a choice of two kinds of hell. That is not the kind of choice that we should be giving sensible and rational voters—certainly not in my part of the world.

Earl Russell: My Lords, am I right in thinking that members of each House may freely attack each other on neutral ground, but they may not do that from behind the ramparts of the privilege of their own House?

Lord Greaves: My Lords, my understanding is that the Companion states that one can criticise members of the House of Commons, as long as it is done on factual matters, matters of issue and principle, and not as a personal attack. I hope that I am not in any way making a personal attack.
	I am merely quoting what has been put out in a press statement by my party, and explaining why I find myself very troubled indeed not to be able to support what my party is saying on this issue. The press statement continues:
	"The Government's original proposal of only one ballot question meant a 'Yes' vote in the regional referendum would automatically have led to unitary government, as proposed by the Boundary Committee for England".
	That is still the case and nothing has changed.
	Finally, the press statement says that this,
	"significantly improves the chances of referendums on regional assemblies actually being won".
	I do not think that the situation in the North West is any different. It will make it much more difficult in one important respect for any referendum in the North West to be won. There is already a united Conservative Party that will be campaigning against it. The Labour Party in the North West is already split, and will not be campaigning for the referendum in any united way. I had hoped that the Liberal Democrats would be. I have no doubt that the Liberal Democrats in the North West will be split down the middle on this proposal. There will be as many campaigning for a "No" vote as for a "Yes" vote. If there is going to be a referendum, the Government has to win—it is not there for the taking. I believe that the chances of a referendum being won are receding by the minute—certainly in the North West, which is the region that I know.
	If the Government hold a referendum in the North West, and they lose, they would set back regional government in our region for a long time. I regret that the amendments that are being moved by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, and later by the Minister, do nothing to help us—or them—to win a referendum in the North West. I now do not genuinely know what side I will be on in that referendum, which is again why I am sitting here and not on the Front Bench.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have not spoken before on the Bill, but the issue has now been widened, far beyond the question of regional assemblies, to a constitutional issue. It is clear that the Liberal Democrats are now the little friends of Labour in England, as well as in Scotland. I am surprised to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, about what has happened. It is to his eternal credit that he has made quite plain what has been going on. It looked to me, when I received a letter from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to explain the Government's view, that there had been a murky deal between them and the Liberal Democrats behind closed doors. However, the noble Lord has explained more to us.
	It is an enormous matter to suggest that people in a referendum should change their local government arrangements, linked to an assembly decision, without conceivably having enough information to know what they should do. When local government became single tier in Scotland in preparation for the Scottish Parliament, it was done openly through primary legislation in a separate Bill. People knew the ins and outs of what was happening. It was not subject to a referendum.
	This is a completely different way of approaching the issue. To think that the county councils are likely to be abolished in that cause before local government elections, for purely political ends, is something that the public should be aware of.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Hanham. I join her in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has been very courageous and highly principled. One of the great strengths of this House is that when Members of this House feel strongly about something, and consider it a matter of principle, we have a reputation for always respecting individuals' consciences. Certainly we do in this instance. We are sad at the story that we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
	I rise briefly to ask what is at stake. We now know—and always did—that the Government's price for regional government was to have single tier government. There was much unease on both the Liberal Democrat Benches and ours when this was being discussed. It seemed to us that to ask one question, which then invited wholesale reorganisation of local government, was wrong. There is now a shabby compromise, where the second question on the ballot paper will be, "Which way do you want to die?" "Do you want regional government?" requiring a straightforward answer, "Yes" or "No". If you answer "Yes", then you will get a shabby compromise and you will have to say whether you want to die by hanging or by the electric chair. You are going to get single tier government whether you like it or not.
	Make no mistake, that is what is at stake, both in Amendment No. 1 and certainly in Amendment No. 12. We believe that this is the death knell for county government for the following reasons. In practice, one can conceive of it being a less serious reorganisation for districts to absorb the functions of the counties, although it would be a major upheaval. We know that planning is being taken from the counties anyway, and we also know that transferring education to learning and skills councils is only a step away. All that would be left would be easily absorbed by the district councils.
	It becomes a clear operation from the point of view of the Government. I say that because I have been listening to Labour politicians for a long time, and I know that their desire has been to see the end of county government. It is impossible to envisage the upheaval that would be caused in the unlikely event of counties becoming the regional single tier. County government has neither the reputation nor the functions and powers of district councils.
	It would not just be a question of reorganising local government, there would be completely new kinds of county councils. They would not be the kind that we know at present. Instead of losing districts and having counties as single tier government, it would be much more likely in practice that one would lose the counties, and there would be single tier government at district level. Even at that level, many of the districts are too small to be unitary authorities. Local people would lose their district councils as they now know them, in favour of a considerable merging of district councils across the country. We know what a pain that would be. Whichever way one looks at it, local government will be moved further away from the people.
	My final point is purely political, and I make no apologies for that. Let the Liberal Democrats go out around the country and explain to the people. We are still at the Report stage of the Bill; it has another stage to go before it goes to the Commons for them to consider what we have had to say. At this early stage of the Bill, to sell local government down the river is unforgivable. I hope that local people are listening to that message. They have handed the Government local government reorganisation on a plate and it will not receive our support.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I shall be brief. At Second Reading I made allusion to various lessons that might be learnt from the past. The Minister was gracious enough to say that I was right. acknowledging that,
	"we should learn lessons from the past when we go in for such changes. In the forthcoming period and during the passage of the Bill, I hope that we will be able to show that we have done that".—[Official Report. 20/2/03; col. 1330.]
	If the consequence of these amendments is the disappearance of the county councils, it is for the Minister in responding to the debate to indicate in what way he has learnt from the past in that regard.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Reorganisation of local government does not come lightly. In a large county with two tiers, 40,000 people might be employed. They will be conscious of their jobs and future. I went through local government reorganisation in the 1990s and in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that he remembered it in the 1970s. It takes a great deal of work and discussion. The concern is not only political; it exists among people working in local government who look after the elderly, run schools and provide other such services.
	As a result of these proposals, during the next year there will be even more chaos as people increasingly fight over two, three or four options. The whole idea is crazy. I do not believe that people understand what local government reorganisation is like. It is vicious. Districts fight districts, and perhaps counties fight counties. We will have a year of such chaos.
	It would have been much simpler to have allowed a question such as, "Do you want to retain your local government structure as it is?". We have heard the Minister say on several occasions that there must be two tiers or nothing. But regional government in other countries works well with three tiers. The Minister and the Government should rethink the whole issue.
	The amendment makes the situation worse. It would cause more chaos, unease and unhappiness for staff. I could not oppose anything more in the Bill. The Bill was difficult before we began our deliberations; this proposal makes it much worse. It will cause chaos and heartache throughout the whole of local government.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall do my best to respond to the point. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, that the reason might not be the elevated one he wants, but basically the lesson here is, "Do the deal early".

Baroness Blatch: Do the deal early?

Lord Rooker: Yes, that is right. Before the noble Baroness carries on, perhaps I may point out that she raised the matter. She talked of a shabby compromise given away by the Liberals at too early a stage. That is what she said, the implication being that it would not have been so shabby had they done so later on. That point was also made by another noble Lord.
	I do not want to mislead anyone. If the soundings are positive, in order to have a referendum in the autumn of next year—not this year—I made it abundantly clear that the Bill would need Royal Assent early. Indeed, I was even told the date in the Chamber. I was told by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that it was 8th May. She had got the date from her Front Bench meeting and discussions with the usual channels. The noble Baroness did not get it from me.
	That being the case, noble Lords can work it out. A government defeat in this House in order to make them listen again and then the possibility of ping-pong between the Houses would mean no Royal Assent by that date. There would be no possibility of a referendum next autumn. That is the policy of the Tory Front Bench because they do not want the Bill anyway. They will do anything to wreck the Bill. For example, on the surface, the proposed change looks modest, sensible, considered and mature, but they know that it will wreck the chance of having a referendum in the autumn of next year.

Baroness Blatch: It is not true.

Lord Rooker: Perhaps I may finish this point, then I will gladly give way. I set out the dates during the Committee stage. No referendum next year also means no referendum possibly before the next general election. That point was also made clear. It would mean that the objectives of the Tory Front Bench had been achieved. To that extent, doing the deal early stops that.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I need to correct the noble Lord. If the Bill received Royal Assent on 8th June instead of 8th May, for example, the referendum would be held one month later next autumn—or one month earlier if it received Royal Assent on 8th April.
	It would be only days if it were simply a matter of ping-pong between the Houses. We obtained the date of 8th May from the Minister's own offices in this House—the usual channels. There is no argument, no intellectual support or defence whatever for 8th May being the last date in order for a referendum to be held in the autumn. It could be held in the autumn if the Bill received Royal Assent on 18th May, 8th June, or a matter of days or weeks later. The noble Lord's argument is not defensible.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is, but I shall not now go into the detail of the steps that need to be taken to set up a referendum. I did so in Committee. The procedure takes into account dates when Parliament is sitting to enable proper consultation to take place and notice to be given in relation to all the stages. The date has been worked backwards. We do not really want the referendum on Christmas Eve, thank you very much. Therefore, we have had to take a sensible approach to setting a date.
	I make that point only because the consequences of at least two of the speeches would be a knock-down battle in this House where it is clear that the Government do not command a majority in order for them to reconsider the issue and come forward with another solution. The time taken up by ping-pong would not allow that to happen. The effect would be to knock out the possibility of a referendum and even to kill the Bill.
	The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, before he realised that his Front Bench opposed the clause, said that this was an important step forward—

Lord Waddington: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that I stand condemned of the most appalling naivety? I had not the slightest idea of all the comings and goings between the Liberal Front Bench and the Government. If I had known more about that, I would have thought twice before speaking. I have to tell the noble Lord that I am entirely persuaded by the oratory of my noble friend.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I fully accept that the comment which the noble Lord made in his intervention during the speech of his colleague was valid. Ultimately using the will of another place—if it were minded to take the same view—the consequence will be to give more choice to people within the parameters. That is what the amendment seeks to do. I do not want to debate whether there should be unitary county councils because it is for the Boundary Committee to come forward with options. Nothing is excluded and it is for the Boundary Committee to consider the issue. Therefore, I do not accept that the intention is deliberately to snuff out county council government in this country.
	In any event, the Bill represents a pilot scheme because we will not have national referendums on regional assemblies. We have made that clear. We know that a region or a small number of regions will have referendums and there is no possibility of regionally elected government in this country before July 2006. I made that point in Committee.
	I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has had to move himself to the Back Benches, but I have to tell him that he has written the election addresses of most of the Tory opponents of his Liberal Democratic colleagues in local elections. However, that is his responsibility and he will have to bear the cost.
	I have great respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, but no analogy can be made with Scotland. However, she was good enough to point out that after going through the processes for setting up unitary authorities, local people were not given a chance to say whether they agreed. Using the noble Lord's words, giving people more choice as regards local government structure must be an important step forward, although I accept that it will take place within the framework of the big picture. Nevertheless, offering more choice cannot be a bad thing.
	If the House is minded to accept Amendment No. 12, the Government will move consequential amendments at Third Reading. I shall explain those in detail when I move them. Given that, I do not intend to make a long speech at this point because, in moving her amendment, the noble Baroness explained how it will work and, indeed, she referred to some of those consequential amendments. We have said all along that we are not going to introduce three-tier local government. That is our mantra, if you like. We propose a two-tier system, not one with three tiers. If we had come forward with a proposal to introduce three-tier government, I flatly refuse to accept that we would not have been attacked by the Conservative Front Bench, by Members in another place and by business outside for overloading the layers of government in this country. I know what would have happened and I do not accept the argument that it would have been welcomed in the form that it has been put to the House today.
	We think that there is no question that unitary government will offer streamlined government and that such a system will not take local governance further away from the people. Furthermore, the amendment certainly does not seek to deprive voters of the opportunity to learn about our intentions because, as I repeated several times, we shall do our best to introduce a draft Bill before the referendum takes place. In any event, we guarantee that details of the consequences of any changes to local government structure will be put before the electorate, and that those will include setting out the options detailing the proposed powers of the regional assemblies. People will know, first, exactly what they are voting for in the referendum and, secondly, what will be the consequences on other elements of local government depending on how they vote.
	We shall require the vote to be taken in each county area to ensure that only those in the affected two-tier areas will be offered a vote in a referendum on the options for unitary authorities. That is an important point. To be honest, a powerful, logical case was put to me on this point. I squirmed as I listened to the speeches in which the point was repeated several times; namely, that it would be unfair in those areas where nearby large urban areas that would not be affected by the relevant local government structure could considerably outvote the electorate in two-tier areas and thus reach a decision on their behalf. That did not seem fair. The form of unitary government we intend to introduce in the event of there being an elected assembly therefore will not be dictated by voters who would be unaffected by any local government reorganisation. The amendment is fully consistent with what we have said all along about the Bill: there will be no new tier of government. That is why I am more than happy to support it.
	Assuming that the amendment is carried, a number of other changes will need to be made to the Bill. Government amendments that I shall move later will ensure that the principle of the amendment can successfully be put into practice. In particular, I shall bring forward amendments to Part 2 of the Bill to provide that the Boundary Committee will make recommendations setting out two or more options for each county area. These are basically provided for in Amendment No. 48, which seeks to insert a new clause immediately following Clause 14.
	The amendments will also make provision to allow the Secretary of State to direct the Boundary Committee to come forward with different recommendations or to carry out further reviews if that is necessary, perhaps to deal with representations made on the original recommendations. In that event, we intend to specify that a period of six weeks should elapse between the receipt of recommendations and the order for the second referendum, which is allowed for in subsection (7) of Amendment No. 12. The period needs to be extended to allow for further representations to be made on the committee's revised recommendations. The amendments will require a certain amount of tidying up of the references to Part 2 in the proposed new clause set out in Amendment No. 12, in particular to subsections (5) and (7). I shall bring forward relevant amendments at Third Reading so that those subsections will contain forward references to the main direction-making power set out in Part 2 and the new one to be introduced by Amendment No. 48.
	We have debated this issue for several hours over the course of our discussions on the Bill. I make no complaint about that because it is the point of principle on which the Bill is based. I did not intend in any way to be threatening when I said to the noble Lord that it is a simple fact that this is a government Bill. If any dislocation had taken place, the Government would not have proceeded with it. That is the choice of any Member in charge of a Bill, whether it is a Private Member's Bill or a piece of government legislation. If a point substantially changes the heart of a Bill, a decision must be made about whether to proceed. I made it abundantly clear that we would not have proceeded unless we could introduce a unitary form of government to sit alongside the elected regional assemblies.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he would be kind enough to answer one question. During the course of our debates I think the Minister said that, if it was rational, the county council boundary could form a unitary authority. He went on to say that it would be up to the Boundary Committee to decide how unitary authority government is formed.
	Can he confirm that if a unitary authority was established from a county council boundary, that county council would no longer hold the powers it has at present and that it would adopt those of the unitary structure?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it would become a unitary county council. We do not have to invent that form. A unitary county council is already in existence and so what is the difference? What would be the difference between that form and what is in place in Herefordshire?

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I hope that Hansard will show clearly—as I have endeavoured to make it clear—why we have approached the matter in this way. I assure the House that it was not done lightly and certainly did not intend to suggest that this was a murky deal, as one noble Lord put it. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in that they wish to see a future for regional government. We want a future that gives people choice.
	Much has been said about the counties, and rightly so. Their future depends on the referendums and, first, on a referendum on whether the local people in any given region want to go ahead with regional government. Furthermore, I have sought to make it clear that I would have preferred to see the two-tier option retained. I shall return to that matter in a moment.
	Building on the last point made by the noble Baronesses, there is the possibility of setting up a form of unitary government on the boundaries of an existing county with the powers of the unitary authorities—although of course one can never be absolutely accurate when attempting to give a two-line summary—that is, with the powers of counties and districts effectively tied together.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to ask the noble Baroness a question. Does she agree that if a unitary authority were based on the county boundaries, the district authority would have to be removed and its functions and powers absorbed into the county? One way or another, under the Liberal amendment, local people will lose either their district authority or their county.

Baroness Hamwee: Yes, my Lords, of course; I have never suggested otherwise. On previous occasions I have spoken forcefully about the importance of districts because they are local. Although we have not discussed the position of parishes in this debate, if a noble Lord tests me then I shall discuss the position of community councils and parishes as well. Of course that is right.
	The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, got it absolutely right. If the Government are determined not to resile from their position, it would be better to provide the options. He asked why all the viable options could not be listed in the legislation. My Amendment No. 12 provides for "at least two options", but given that the options would be different for each area, it would not be practicable to list all the detailed options.
	I turn now to the reorganisation of local government. I understand very well, although I have not lived through it myself, how agonising that can be and how agonising it was during the 1990s. I do not think the Conservatives should be as proud of that reorganisation as they appear to be indicating today.
	As my noble friend Lord Greaves said, he and I have different perspectives on this matter. There is not as sharp a distinction in our objectives as one might think. It is a matter of judgment whether to allow the Bill to be killed, which the Minister has been very clear about, or to keep the original form of the Bill. I cannot emphasise too much that it is also a matter of judgment when to negotiate over what might be on offer to achieve what is likely to be the best outcome.
	My noble friend Lord Greaves—he is still my noble friend and I hope he is still my friend as well as being noble—said that the referendum has to be won and is not there for the taking. I agree. The referendum in each region must be won. It goes without saying that it is a matter of considerable sadness that my noble friend and I disagree on this issue. He finds himself behind me. We will be together, not in parallel, on an awful lot of issues.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, described reorganisation as sometimes vicious. He rightly referred to the unhappiness and uncertainties that can be caused for staff, among other people. I accept that, but it must also be accepted that for reasons such as resources, reorganisation is not in prospect for most regions for some considerable time. It does not do our colleagues in local government any good—I count staff and officers among colleagues—for them to worry that what we are discussing is galloping over the horizon and will threaten their future in the next few weeks. That is not the case.
	The Minister has been clear about the position. I am grateful for his recognition that the vote on local government should be local and not region-wide.
	We want the prospect of regional government brought forward, with voters being given the vote regarding regional assemblies and options for local government. The first amendment about the purpose of the Bill was tabled to explain the issues to the House at the start of the Report stage. I shall move Amendment No. 12 when we reach it. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 7, at end insert "provided that in any order made under this subsection, it shall be made clear what will be the powers and functions of the assembly proposed, and how it will be funded"

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps I should repeat my apology for having mistimed my entry because I thought this was a different Bill. I have been surprised on a past occasion by your Lordships going, for once, rather faster than is customary and therefore missing my cue. I apologise for any inconvenience I caused.
	When the Bill came forward, I wondered what on earth it was for. There was so little accompanying information. My guess was that the local government offices of the different regions which have been established probably needed some garments of democratic respectability to explain what they were at. I still think that there may be something in that. On the other hand, I have had the benefit of considerable guidance from my noble friends on the Front Bench and my noble friend Lord Waddington. My noble friend Lady Blatch made no secret of the fact that she thought the Government were bent on a whole-hog reorganisation of local government which they needed to explain much more thoroughly.
	My noble friend Lord Waddington, as is his practice, put his finger on the key question. If these assemblies are not to have any new powers or enjoy the benefit of new funds, what on earth are they going to do? My noble friend asked that question very clearly but did not receive a clear answer from the Minister who is more capable than many Ministers I have known of giving perfectly clear answers when he wants to. If he cannot find one—if there is not one available—not even his love of clarity is sufficient to meet the requirement.
	I have assembled, in the best way I can, some information I gleaned from reading at least parts of the Committee stage. I shall be bold enough to remind your Lordships of some eight or nine items. First, this is not another tier of local government. I had always suspected that that was exactly what it would be, but I still do not know what it is. When the Minister told us that the work of existing regional bodies will be brought under democratic control, I wondered which regional bodies he had in mind, what they had been up to and why they needed this sort of discipline. I am still curious to know.
	We have also been told by the Minister that the bodies are strategic. I do not think I recall being told whose strategy they have adopted or of what it consists. Here is another slight gap. As one who adheres to the belief that small is beautiful—unfashionable though that is—I was slightly comforted to be told that the assemblies will be very small. I wondered about that. We are told that they will be paid. But why will they be very small when they are representing larger areas? In other words, they will surely have very large constituencies indeed.
	The next point I noted is that they will be legally distinct from a local authority. What on earth are they going to do? They are not part of central government—or are they? My original suspicion was that they will be put there to give a cloak of decency to the local government offices which the Deputy Prime Minister has been so busy setting up.
	The next piece of information, which, again, I make little comment on—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord has said this before, but it simply is not true. The regional offices of government were set up in principle and in function by the previous administration. They are nothing to do with the Deputy Prime Minister and nothing to do with the present Government. It is true we have added other departments to them, but the regional government offices were cherished bodies set by the previous Conservative government. The noble Lord must not keep saying it. I know he likes to have a dig at the Deputy Prime Minister, but it is nothing to do with him.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I accept what the Minister says. However, it seems to me that the regional government offices have had new life breathed into them under the direction of the Deputy Prime Minister. They have certainly grown from having a weak influence to being much more robust. Obviously, they need some sort of democratic clothing, with which the Government are kindly going to provide them, with Parliament's agreement.
	The Minister told us that the assemblies would be only a modest advance in democratic accountability, in spending large sums of public money. That has not really been explained to us in any way; we still need to know what the bodies are, and why they need the extra degree of control. We are told that it cannot be "big local government", because it is not local government. The Minister could have gone further with that explanation. We are also told that no existing unitary authority will have its boundaries interfered with. Only when the structure is two-tier are the Government likely to intervene. However, I still do not know to what extent the fears expressed by my noble friend Lady Blatch, that this heralds a wholesale intrusion into the present framework of local government, are justified or not. One suspects that my noble friend has got it right.
	We are told, too—and I take comfort from this, although I do not understand what it really means—that no case has been made out for another tier of elected people. What will the new framework of assemblies constitute, other than another tier? After all, it is new—we do not have it at the moment. When I sought an explanation from the Government, I failed to get anything satisfactory.

Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Lord remember that when we discussed the free posts for the mayoral election in 2000, the Government maintained that their position was justified because, although London had more inhabitants than Scotland, this was only a local election? Does that not suggest that the concept of the region is not yet securely embedded in Government minds?

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Earl, who is obviously thinking along similar lines to myself. I said at an earlier stage that sometimes Government language is a little confusing. Some of the phrases that I quoted, which were aimed at explaining what the Government were at, left me in a confused state of mind. I would not wish to suggest that the noble Earl is ever confused, but if it could ever be said of him that he suffers from a confusion of mind, I can only say that he has my full sympathy, because I am suffering from exactly the same disability. I am much obliged to him for his intervention.
	I have looked for an explanation of this Bill in all sorts of strange places, including on the Liberal Democrat Benches—although I did not look for one from the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I picked up a quotation from the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, who I am glad to see has returned to his seat. He said: "On these Benches"—a phrase that Liberals tend to use to emphasise their separateness from the rest of us—
	"regional government is about democratising that which is in the regions already and further devolving from central government".—[Official Report, 13/3/03; col. 1444.]
	I have read those words several times but they shed no light at all on the confusion in my mind. In fact, I felt even more at a loss to understand what the noble Lord really had in mind. If he wishes to intervene, I would be more than grateful.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the government office. We have one in Yorkshire, in Leeds. Democratising that which is there means that those powers that are dealt with by the government office in Leeds would be further devolved to the regional assembly, which would be based somewhere in Yorkshire. Furthermore, as was indicated in the answer to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the Government are now saying that further matters will be devolved. That provides some reassurance to those on these Benches, that the process will not stop with government offices, such as the one in Leeds. I also hope that as time goes on, some matters that are currently dealt with by quangos will be dealt with by the region.
	We on these Benches are clear about the duty and responsibility of local government and what is appropriate when decisions are appropriately made on a regional basis. That is why, with some misgivings, we are now supporting this Bill.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, it would be churlish on my part if I did not thank the noble Lord for the lucidity of his explanation. It is entirely due to my own deficiencies, but it will take some time before I can digest the meaning that I am sure is hidden in his words.
	Before I sit down, I should like to be a little eccentric and refer to the amendment that I have tabled. It is quite a modest affair. When a new organisation is established, surely it is not asking too much to ask what it will do, how much money it will have and how it will get that money. That is the substance of the amendment that I tabled, in the—probably—vain hope that it will help the Government to elucidate their plans. It is not so long since they were in opposition, and they must still retain some shreds of sympathy for those of us who sit on the Opposition Benches and wonder what they are at. The Government are in the proud position of having an opportunity to explain.
	I would like to know what powers the regional assemblies will have, what duties they will be under and what funds will support them. That last point is not unimportant. I very much hope that the Minister, who I have always found to be helpful in my exchanges with him, will be able to illuminate us. I thank him most warmly beforehand for what I am sure he will try to do. I beg to move.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, my noble friend has highlighted the complete inadequacy of the provision in Clause 2. Noble Lords will remember that, before the question on the ballot paper, there is to be a statement intended to tell the voter precisely what powers the elected assemblies will have.
	Clause 2(2) states:
	"the elected assembly would be responsible for a range of activities currently carried out mainly by central government bodies, including regional economic development".
	I shall not be alone in arguing that that statement is hopelessly inadequate and, in many respects, thoroughly misleading. For instance, no one would think from that bland statement that there will be no more money for the regions which opt for an elected assembly, and yet we have referred more than once during our deliberations to page 45 of the White Paper, where it is stated quite bluntly at Chapter 5.4 that there will be no inconsistency of treatment between those regions where there is an elected assembly and those regions where there is not. In other words, there will be no more money if you vote for an elected assembly. Why that is not in the bland statement in Clause 2(2) I do not know. I therefore support the spirit of my noble friend's amendment.
	We shall address the question of what should be in Clause 2(2) in later amendments, but we should not lose sight of what my noble friend said. As it stands, the Bill is quiet inadequate and does not begin to tell the prospective voter what on earth these assemblies will be about.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, began his speech with an apology. It certainly caused me no inconvenience that he spoke at the wrong time to the wrong debate. I thought it amusing. As the noble Lord said, it is such a rare occurrence for a Member of Your Lordships' House to move quickly that I found it a good moment.
	I am sorry that the noble Lord does not understand the Government's policy. He said that he has done a great deal of research but it is obvious that the one document he clearly has not read—although his noble friend Lord Waddington has—is the White Paper which, at this early stage in the process, answers in detail many of the questions the noble Lord has raised. I do not believe that at the Report stage we should go over again many of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, raised in Committee.
	It is the Government's intention that there should be clarity and transparency in this process. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is nodding in agreement and smiling.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, there is no hidden agenda. We are at an early stage in the process. We want everyone—including, most importantly, the voters—to understand the regional assemblies, their powers and their structures. That is why—and my noble friend Lord Rooker and I have made this point on a number of occasions—we propose to publish detailed information about the new assemblies prior to every referendum, if there is to be one. We have made this commitment on a number of occasions and we will stand by it. I repeat, we will give the electorate full information about the powers and functions of, and everything else related to, the regional assemblies.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I did not intervene in the debate because, as the Minister quite rightly said, I did not want to go over old ground that has been covered in Committee. I am sure that the House wishes to get on. But I should like an answer to one question. The Minister and his noble friend Lord Rooker have said several times that regional government, regional authorities, regional assemblies will not mean more powers being taken from local government. If that is so, why do the Government want precepting powers in the Bill? If local governance is not going to be pushed upwards to the regional authorities, it is quite wrong that rate payers should be saddled with paying the costs for services which are rightly national or regional. I hope the Minister will be able to answer that question. I am sure that the House will be interested.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am attempting to explain the Government's position and commitment to communication in relation to the regional assemblies. By "communication" I mean explaining to people what the regional assemblies are for and how we propose to deal with them. I shall deal later with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister will not forget it though, will he?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, how can I forget it?
	The powers, functions and funding arrangements will be outlined in a Bill that your Lordships will have every opportunity to debate at enormous length. The Bill will be introduced into Parliament once at least one region has voted in favour of a regional assembly. This will ensure that parliamentary time is not wasted and follows the precedent set with the establishment of the Greater London Authority, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.
	Importantly, we said in Committee that we would do our best to publish a draft Bill to establish elected regional assemblies before the first referendum or referendums. That important commitment still stands. We shall publish a draft Bill containing the information needed before a referendum. We shall discuss the more specific amendments relating to this issue when we come to them.
	I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that there is no hidden agenda. We are not bringing forward ideas that we are not prepared to stand by in public. We are at the early stage of the process. The document Your Region, Your Choice contains a great deal of information. Members of the House have said, "Fine, but it does not contain enough information". We agree. That is why it is important not only to publish a draft Bill—we shall do our best to do so—but to publish enormously detailed notes for voters and the general public so that they have an understanding of what is happening. That will go a long way towards answering the legitimate questions that have been asked.
	As to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, about the funding of the assemblies, as well as the programme expenditure for which they are responsible, regional assemblies will receive a general grant from central government to meet most of their direct running costs. However, we believe that the people in any region with an elected assembly should make some contribution towards its running costs, whether or not an assembly raises additional money in the region for programme expenditure.
	The level of general grant will be set to take account of this contribution. We also believe that an assembly should be able to raise some extra money within the region if it believes that that is desirable—for example, to increase funding for economic development—and likely to be supported by the region's voters.
	We shall expect council tax payers in any region with an elected assembly to contribute the equivalent of around 5 pence per week for a Band D council tax payer. A regional assembly may have plans, will need additional moneys to realise those plans and will get that from the precept on council tax payers.
	I hope that I have answered the points that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, raised. Most importantly, though, I very much hope that—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene but we do not have the opportunity to come back at any later stage. This is Report stage. That is why noble Lords should be allowed to ask final questions. With regard to the answer the noble Lord gave concerning precepting, it does therefore seem that regional assemblies will be able to take money from local authorities and from local council tax payers for matters with which they may not agree; in other words, depriving local authorities of money which they might otherwise wish to spend on their local services. I am not satisfied to find that regional assemblies, without having direct representation, will be able to raise taxes locally, because that is what it amounts to.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I do not wish to address the House on procedure but my understanding is that at Report stage if a noble Lord wishes to elucidate an answer, he or she has every right to intervene further. It could be argued that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is doing just that.
	I repeat a sentence I read out a moment ago. The level of general grant will be set to take account of this contribution. We also believe that an assembly should be able to raise some extra money within the region if it believes that that is desirable—for example, to increase funding for economic development—and likely to be supported by the region's voters.
	As I said, I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. He asked many detailed questions further to carrying out his research. In my view those will be answered by the further in-depth information that will be published by the Government not only in terms of explanatory booklets but also, we hope, in terms of a draft Bill which, as I said, we very much hope to be able to publish before the first referendum.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I know the noble Lord for his intelligence and for his courtesy. I believe that had there been good answers to the questions that I raised, he would certainly have given them. There are two possible explanations: one is that the Government do not as yet know them themselves; the second is that they have not told the noble Lord, in which case he is in a very unpleasant and difficult position. Of course he has my utmost sympathy because I have found myself not always on the best of terms with my Front Bench, extraordinary as it may seem.
	There are two points to which I should like to refer very briefly. First, I welcome the noble Lord's assurance that the Government have no hidden agenda and that there are no surprises to come. That is most interesting. The second matter, which rather puzzled me, was that the noble Lord said that we were at the early stages of a process. Processes can lead anywhere. People who initiate processes are the last to be able always to indicate or prophesy their fulfilment or their conclusions. So I am not entirely comforted by that; my worries are still very much there.
	I should have liked—I hope that my noble friend is listening to every word that I am going to say now—to have sought the opinion of the House on this particular amendment which has the merit of clarity and of being easily understood. That is rare on occasion in your Lordships' House. But on the other hand, just as I was beginning to steel myself to thinking that we ought to have a Division, I met the terrifying glance of my noble friend Lady Hanham on the Front Bench. I read from that that if I wished to escape alive from your Lordships' House this afternoon I had better not ask for a Division. Therefore, with great regret, I ask permission to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 1, line 7, at end insert—
	"( ) Before making an order under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must exercise his powers as defined in section 25 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 (c. 45) (power to alter regions) to review the boundaries of the regions as specified in Schedule 1 of that Act."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, a very fierce Baroness Hanham gets to her feet.
	In Committee I introduced an amendment which would effectively have forced the Secretary of State to ignore the boundaries as defined in the Regional Development Agencies Act and to ask the Boundary Committee to start from scratch, inviting submissions from local authorities and any other relevant interested parties about the creation of regions which were compatible in size and which reflected the needs and identities of local communities.
	It would be fair to say that my amendment met with a mixed response. I received considerable support from some who felt that the 1998 regional boundaries, which had, after all, been created for administrative not constitutional purposes, were less than satisfactory. They were adamant that the boundaries were nonsensical and that these regions had no obvious unity or cohesion for election purposes. I was faced with allegations from the Government that it was merely a wrecking amendment designed to be an impediment to any progress on the establishment of regional assemblies as any such comprehensive review would take at least a year.
	I spent a little time rereading that debate and I have listened to both the support and the criticisms. In response I have tabled Amendment No. 3, which is intended to be something of a compromise. The Minister said that he had not ruled out any future change in boundaries of regions. Not surprisingly, I and many other noble Lords thought that it would be far preferable to review the boundaries at the beginning before making substantial changes in terms of local government reorganisation and restructuring and incurring large costs by setting up the administrative machinery of regional assemblies.
	Amendment No. 3 follows that commonsense approach of reviewing boundaries at the start rather than making changes later. As the current boundaries reflect those defined in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, our amendment refers to Section 25 of that Act which states that:
	"The Secretary of State may by order make alterations in the extent of the regions in Schedule 1".
	It goes on to explain that he cannot alter the number of regions. He should, however,
	"take such steps as he considers sufficient to secure that members of the public who may be interested in the proposed order are informed of it and of the period within which they may make representations to him about it".
	He must also consult the RDAs, the local authorities that will be affected and such other persons as he thinks fit. Any order made under this section must be laid in draft before both Houses and approved by affirmative resolution.
	The Secretary of State therefore already has the power to alter regions under that section of the RDA Act 1998. I believe that the section is eminently sensible and well drafted. It does not, of course, go so far as my previous amendment, but it would ensure that the anomalies could be ironed out. Where areas such as Cornwall or Cumbria had particular concerns, the Boundary Committee would have to take them into account.
	The steps to be taken are straightforward. The process need not be that over-expensive or time-consuming. The power rests not with another body, but with the Secretary of State himself. If the Government were committed to listening to what the people wanted, they would agree to the amendment. It concedes some flexibility. The boundaries are not set in stone, and nor should they be. The Secretary of State must at least have a look at the possibility of altering the regions before he kicks off the whole process of regional assemblies. Indeed, he might even be persuaded that the number of regions was wrong and should be increased. If so, he could take action to do that.
	Boundaries by their very nature are contentious. Those on the periphery will always feel more affinity with the town just across the border than with the central city of the region, which may be two hours drive away. Paragraph 6.4 of the White Paper states that,
	"the Government believes that a prolonged debate over the composition of individual regions is likely to generate a good deal of fervour, but with no obvious prospect that boundaries that are more widely acceptable or practicable would emerge at the end".
	However, as I said before and as we discussed in Committee, the regions are incorrect. They are completely unbalanced in terms of population and geography, for example. We have had long discussions on the absurdity of each boundary and what it included.
	It is frankly irresponsible to avoid consideration of a review of boundaries in the expectation that no preferable boundary arrangement is likely to be discovered. The Government have a positive duty to undertake a review. The power to do so already exists in a previous Act of Parliament. They have consistently said that regional assemblies are about choice and will not simply be imposed. To fail to consult on boundaries would incur great resentment and make people feel that they had been forced into a region for which they had no affinity. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords—

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and I were being so polite to each other that we failed to let the Minister see that there were some comments to be made.
	The noble Baroness talked in terms of the Secretary of State reviewing the regions. I hope that the Minister can help us on how many years—I suspect that it would be years—would be required to review the boundaries of the regions, which I read as meaning all the boundaries of all the regions. It would be a matter for the Boundary Committee of England, not for the Secretary of State to design when he was having a leisurely bath one morning.
	I hope that the exceptional circumstances to which the White Paper refers, in paragraph 6.5 on the possible alteration of regional assembly boundaries, and to which the Minister referred in Committee can be interpreted quite widely by the Government. It is perfectly clear that there are areas in which boundary considerations outweigh almost everything else. It is also clear that there are some regions where there is a great deal more interest in regional government. I do not expect the Minister to be geographically specific but I can say that, in my assessment at any rate, those areas are ones in which boundary considerations are not as great as in others.
	I learned only recently that a full Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has just referred, would have to deal with the issue of boundaries. It is most important that the matter is not wholly off the agenda once we have dealt with this preparations Bill. What concerns us is that the exercise would be very prolonged. I accept that Amendment No. 3 is different, but I was concerned by the amendment moved by the noble Baroness in Committee on creating such an extended programme as to take regional government off the agenda, in effect. I fear the same with this amendment.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, it cannot be said too often that the present regions were never designed as electoral units. They were never created with elections in mind. They were purely areas drawn on a map to show what would be the area of responsibility of particular Government Offices of the Regions. That has to be borne in mind the whole time.
	It is therefore hardly surprising that, when the Government come along with the bizarre idea of having elected regional assemblies, they should find that the regions drawn on the map for purely administrative purposes do not make sense when one considers having elections. Time and again, we have pointed out to the Government the absurdity of some of the regional boundaries when it comes to elections, such as having Banbury in the south-east region, Watford in the eastern region and Cheltenham in the south-west region.
	I do not suggest that the Government should necessarily use the mechanism at hand under the 1998 Act to change all the regional boundaries, but they cannot deny that machinery is already at hand to get rid of the more obvious anomalies. I cannot for the life of me see why, when the Government acknowledge that considerable time is bound to elapse before any of the referendums can take place, they do not address some of the most obvious anomalies.
	There is always the Cornwall question. Do the Government really want to embark on the exercise knowing perfectly well that it is anathema to the people of Cornwall to be embraced in one south-western region and ruled from Bristol? One has only to go down there to know how unpopular such a notion is. We need a plain statement from the Government as to why they think that such administrative boundaries are apposite for elections, why they are not prepared to iron out some of the most obvious anomalies, and why they are prepared to go ahead without getting rid of the most obvious anomaly of all, which is Cornwall being included in the south-western region of which it feels in no way a part.
	The mechanism is there. I cannot see why a great deal of time need be spent dealing with some of the most obvious anomalies using Section 25. I will not be fobbed off by the Minister saying, "Well, I am asking for everything to be put into the melting pot and a new map drawn". I am saying that the Government have no excuse for ducking the need to get rid of the most obvious anomalies. They should get on with it right away by using Section 25 of the 1998 Act.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I want to speak along those lines in support of the amendment. We tabled it because it is simple. Totally contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, it is not designed to take some time. It addresses some of the most silly situations currently in the boundaries. We accept, of course, that the Minister has said several times that different parts of the country might not have referendums in the near future so the problem does not matter.
	We had a similar debate on the Bill about the regional development agencies. Several of us made the points then, certainly in relation to the East and South East where the boundaries are most difficult. I repeat what I have said before, which is that Essex and Hertfordshire, much as we love Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire, have much more in common with the South East and London. Everything would be much better for the RDAs in terms of economic development and planning processes if action were taken now. The Minister himself has been putting forward development proposals for the South East which will always include Essex. It would be much better if we were included with those counties. So in addition to sorting out the boundaries for the referendums, Amendment No. 3 could help in relation to the RDAs.
	Many of us were involved from the outset and saw how the then Conservative government created the government offices. There were government offices all over the place in the Eastern region—in Bedfordshire, in Cambridge and some in Suffolk—but they were centralised in Cambridge. It made sense to do that. At one stage, for many purposes, Buckinghamshire was included in the Eastern region. It was then moved into the South East. It would be better for everyone if this issue, which concerns not only this Bill, were addressed now. If we are to have referendums, they should be based on sensible regions. As we have said, regions in other countries were created for historical reasons—they may at one stage have been countries themselves or served some other particular purpose. We do not have such a history in England.
	We should make some sense of the proposals. That is an easy request for the Minister. He would make many of us happier if he said today that he will examine the boundaries, both in terms of the Bill and in order to make sense of the arrangements. It is an easy one and I hope that he will give us some satisfaction.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, this is a good example of a case in which the Government have the choice of rushing legislation or getting it right. They clearly want to rush it. We have been told that it would be impossible to delay the proposals for even two or three weeks. I have been given that type of bureaucratic hogwash by officials and politicians for the past 35 years but I do not believe any of it.
	In Committee various amendments on boundaries were proposed. In the morning, we discussed at great length a Conservative amendment which was not satisfactory because it contained all sorts of impractical detail. In the afternoon, we discussed a Liberal Democrat amendment which I moved on behalf of these Benches. I thought that we had come to some agreement that the essence of the amendment that I had moved would be acceptable also to the Conservatives. Although the wording is different, I cannot discern a difference in meaning between the Conservatives' Amendment No. 3 and the amendment that I moved in Committee. So I am not quite sure why we are not supporting the Conservatives' Amendment No. 3.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that there is no real reason why this legislation should be rushed. There is absolutely no reason why we should have the first referendum during the life of this Parliament. We do not even know what the life of this Parliament will be—it could end next year. So there is no rush about it.
	The present regional boundaries were set up in 1995 to cope with the decision which I believe was made at Maastricht that there should be direct relationships between the regions and the Commission over the disbursement of the social and economic development funds. If the Government really want to develop regionalisation, it seems absurd not to have looked at the boundaries that were created in 1995 for a specific purpose. It would satisfy people across the country, and indeed satisfy Members of this House, to hear the Government say that they will look at the present regional boundaries to ensure that they are the very best boundaries to suit their purposes. I think that people would feel a lot happier and be much more trusting of the legislation if the Government did that.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we spent a lot of time discussing this issue in Committee. One of the points discussed, with which I think the Minister had some sympathy, was the boundaries of the metropolitan areas. At that stage those boundaries were inviolate and could not be examined, although the council and district boundaries could be examined. In his reply, will the Minister tell us what further consideration he has given to the matter and what are his current thoughts?

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I can remember when the Cabinet committee was discussing the introduction of government offices in English regions. I remember thinking to myself that the move potentially served the purposes of the Labour Party and that no good would come of it. However, even I never dreamed that the Government would throw the whole of English local government in the air just to see what sort of kaleidoscope reached the ground.
	On the first amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, answered a question that I put to him about lessons which might be learnt from the disappearance of local government by giving me an answer that bore no relation to the question I had asked. However, we are back with a lesson on this occasion, too, in the context of anomalies. It was a matter of pride among English cartographers that they always did their own mapping and did not copy earlier maps. The great John Speed mapped Wiltshire within a dozen miles of where I live. A village called Burcombe was on either side of what is now the A30. John Speed called the part to the south Burcombe. Because he did not know the name of the north side, he simply wrote on the map, "Query". It so happens that if you look at any Wiltshire map made from then onwards, the word "Query" still appears to the north of the road, even though English cartographers said that they never copied earlier maps made by other people.
	I follow my noble friends who have spoken about anomalies. It would be a great pity if, like John Speed's "Query", anomalies remained on our regional maps for ever.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, it is some time since my noble friend Lady Hamwee spoke. One of the issues that she hopes the Minister will address is what will happen under the Bill. As we on these Benches understand it—and the point has been reiterated today—there will be a draft Bill before referendums are put in place. Although we understand that the boundaries issue will be addressed in that Bill, our deliberations would be greatly assisted if that could be made quite clear. The boundary issue is more important in some parts of the country than in others. People in my own area in north-east England are quite clear that they live in the North East, and they want a referendum as soon as they can have one.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the debate has lasted longer than I expected. If anyone else wishes to speak they should do so. I certainly do not want to stop it.
	To all who asked about our thinking since Committee stage, at the risk of repeating myself and boring the House—because this is the same debate as we had in Committee—I point out that, as we and the White Paper have made clear, a revisitation of the boundary issue in the undetermined future is not ruled out. However, that is not part of this Bill. I want to make it absolutely clear that we currently have no plans for changing the regional boundaries or the number of regions.
	Noble Lords seem to think that such a change is simply a five-minute job on the back of an envelope and will not delay anything. They also seem to think that just one regional boundary can be changed and the others can be left alone. If the boundary is changed for one region, it will mean a change for another; and there is a knock-on effect.
	I do not want to upset the Front Bench opposite. Incidentally, I was about to say that the vigorous, sustained political attack from the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, means early promotion to the Front Bench for him. It will certainly remove the blot on his copybook that occurred earlier this afternoon.
	My basic point is that any walking down this road means that the situation would be exactly the same as in earlier debates: no referendums next year, no referendums this side of a general election. It kills the Bill. That is the consequence of even looking at the boundaries. If this Bill receives Royal Assent and the soundings indicate a region or regions where there is a desire to hold a referendum, one of the first actions of the Secretary of State will be to ask the Boundary Committee to review local government structures within the region. If it does not know what the region is, it cannot do that. That means no referendum next autumn.
	That is part of the plot. The plot is to stop the referendums. I understand the issue. The Conservative Opposition is against the Bill in principle. I am not criticising the amendment. This is a natural point to raise. The regions do vary in size in terms of both population and land area; they vary in the way in which they are governed and in their structures. England is not the same all over and it is right that they should vary.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but I am becoming a trifle confused. I have not read anything in the Bill which says that it will cease to be valid if its provisions are slightly delayed. There is nothing in the Bill resembling a sunset clause. The Minister is imposing his own from the Front Bench in saying that this is government policy. As I read the Bill, a year or two, or five, could perfectly well be taken to review the boundaries if that were so wished. Unless Parliament repeals the Bill, it will remain active.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am not making this up as I go along. I set out the policy clearly in Committee, as best I could given the present detail, working back from obtaining, if desired, a referendum next autumn. If that timetable is not met, there will be no referendum. There will be no prospect of regional government in July 2006 at the earliest. There will probably be no prospect of a referendum the year after. Then, there will be all the fuss about a possible general election after four years. There will be all those difficulties. This simply kills the idea stone dead. Noble Lords can shake their heads and disagree all they like. That is the policy. The policy is: if there is a desire for regional elected assemblies and a desire to have a referendum to bring them about, the best available opportunity that we have worked out, going through all due process, is to aim for referendums by next autumn. It will take us that long to do it. The noble Lord wants to intervene again. That is fine, but I have not started addressing the amendment.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister has confirmed what I have said: it is not what is on the face of the Bill that matters in this instance; it is what the Government are determined to have.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is government policy. I make no apology for that. It helps the House in coming to an informed decision, where there is a timetable involved, to know what the policy is. In answering what can be a good, sensible, mature case—namely, to examine the boundaries—I have to explain why we do not agree with the amendment. The reasons are different. They are not reasons of principle—because we have said that we do not rule out looking at the boundaries in future. They are reasons of practicality—to try to achieve the objective that, if the people of this country indicate that they want regional government, they should have an opportunity to vote in a referendum to bring it about. That is another answer to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that there will be no consideration. It is only a couple of weeks since the debates in Committee on the metropolitan boundaries.
	There have been a large number of references to Section 25 of the Regional Development Agencies Act. It is as though the Secretary of State could just go out, willy-nilly, and redraw boundaries himself. First, he cannot add to the boundaries. In moving the amendment, the noble Baroness said that he could not increase the number, but went on to talk about changing the numbers, as did another noble Lord. If there is nothing fixed about the boundaries, why is anything fixed in regard to nine regions? If you open up the can of worms, there has to be flexibility in asking whether we have the right number of regions? That is not provided for in the regional development—

Lord Dixon: My Lords, will my noble friend give way? Will he also acknowledge the fact that a consultation process has been carried out on the boundaries? If people want to change them now, we shall have to go through that process again.

Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, that would naturally follow—which also rules it out. But, as I say, we have not ruled out in the longer term the possibility of adopting boundaries for regional assemblies that do not follow the existing regional boundaries.
	A key aim of elected regional assemblies is to bring under democratic control and scrutiny the work of existing regional bodies. A significant number of these—not all—are based on the existing regions: the Government Offices, the regional development agencies and other parts of government operate to these boundaries. Redrawing them now would create tremendous upheaval. It would indeed stop the process in its tracks, which is the intention behind this otherwise sensible and mature amendment. It would certainly delay the first referendums. It might necessitate holding public inquiries. It is not something that Ministers can do at a stroke.
	It is interesting to note the long-distance considerations in previous Cabinet discussions when the boundaries were set up at the time of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. It was highly optimistic on the part of those involved to assume that at some point in the future there would be a Labour government. I can assure noble Lords that we in opposition did not think that. In those days things were looking pretty bad.
	So there is a real problem. The existing boundaries are a reasonable size. They vary in population, as the country varies, and in geography and demographic weight. So what? We do not want everywhere to be the same. I understand that people feel very strongly about this, but in terms of how many years it would take to review all the regional boundaries—at the risk of frightening everyone and having it said that I am using extreme language—we have no experience in terms of how the review would be carried out, but we have to look at the timetable for the review of the parliamentary boundaries. In our view, a major review takes several years. This cannot be done in a few months. That is contrary to the Government's policy—for which I make no apology—of being able to let people choose whether or not they want the opportunity to have elected regional government. Therefore, having had the same debate twice, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I was interested in the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who I understand is considered something of a black sheep at the moment. He rightly drew attention to an amendment in his name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in Committee suggesting, in relation to page 1, line 7, that a referendum should be held after the Boundary Committee for England had reviewed the number and boundaries of the regions specified in Schedule 1 to the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 and reported its recommendations to the Secretary of State. That is practically identical to what I am proposing today. Yet, somewhere along the line in the grubby backdoor discussions that have taken place over the past couple of days, the Liberal Democrats have lost even their enthusiasm for putting forward amendments to review the regional boundaries.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I can elucidate. The amendment was moved in order that it could be spoken to. We did not vote on it at that stage. It was withdrawn. The noble Baroness seems to suggest that it might not be possible, even while talking among one's own colleagues and talking with people on other Benches, to review what is the right way forward.
	As I said, I have become clear that this is not an exercise to review the boundaries of the regions—which I read as not being possible to pick and choose, nor something the Secretary of State could do in his bath one morning when he had nothing else to think about. I want to make it clear that this is not because there are grubby deals going on in murky, smoke-filled corridors, and otherwise. One can actually think about what one is proposing as the debate continues. After all, that is one reason for having more than one stage.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, as I pointed out in Committee, the noble Baroness was not even speaking with the same voice as her colleagues in another place. Perhaps they have also changed their minds. I assume they have.
	The noble Lord repeatedly says that we want to delay the Bill. In fact, we are not much in favour of it, but it will be a Bill and it needs to make sense. When considering regions, one of the areas that needs to make sense is the regional boundaries. That is why I have pushed the issue not only in Committee but also at this stage.
	In reality, the Government will never be able to look at the boundaries again. Once a regional assembly is in place, that will set the boundaries for evermore. They will not be able to review them. The Minister's idea that perhaps at some stage, somewhere down the line, a boundaries review might take place seems, in reality, just Cloud-cuckoo-land. As we have pointed out, any reform of boundaries or local government will be appreciated. Regional government is not local government; it is defined as something else. But any time that issue is considered at a later stage, there will be even more difficulty and more problems than if it was looked at at this stage.
	I understand the view of the Minister; I hear what the Liberal Democrats say; but I should like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 160.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 1, line 7, at end insert—
	"( ) No order under subsection (1) shall be made until a draft Bill setting out the powers, responsibilities and constitutional arrangements of elected regional assemblies has been published by the Secretary of State and laid before both Houses of Parliament for scrutiny."

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, this amendment returns to a core theme of our debates on the Bill. We have discussed this matter at Second Reading and in Committee. Many comments have been made by the Minister and others on this theme. Voters should have such information and knowledge before a referendum.
	The Government published the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions, about which we have heard much and which we have all read in considerable detail. Over the past few days we have asked for more information about the powers and responsibilities of any regional assembly, along the lines of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Peyton.
	The amendment is tabled to try to gain a commitment from the Government that they will publish a draft Bill. We would like to have seen legislation in place and our original amendments were along those lines. During Committee—one has to be realistic—we were accused several times, as we have been in the past few days, of moving amendments to wreck the Bill. We all acknowledge that the Government will achieve their Bill and that at some stage we shall have a referendum—maybe at the end of next year if all the information is ready by then. The Government want to hold a referendum in one or more regions. Therefore it is vital that people know what the assemblies will do. There is much uncertainty about the situation.
	The amendment seeks to put on the face of the Bill that there should be a draft Bill stating the powers and responsibilities of regional government. That is along the lines on which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has spoken of and I hope she will support it now. I believe the feeling of the House is that the Government should say where we are going.
	There is little knowledge of this subject. In a MORI poll in the South East of England—I do not believe much in polls—80 per cent had no idea about regional government. When asked what they thought a regional government would do, 90 per cent put education first. I do not believe that that is one of the powers that will be dealt with by regional assemblies.
	In tabling this amendment I hope that the Government will assure the House that they will bring forward a draft Bill before any referendum takes place and that such a provision will be put on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord spoke to Amendment No. 57 which is grouped with this amendment. It is a more extreme amendment that would stop the Act coming into force before a draft Bill was in place. That is not a position to which reference has been made. I am sure that there are constitutional niceties about that on which other noble Lords, better qualified than I, can comment. If Parliament wills this Bill to become law, it is a little odd for it to be conditional on the publication of a government draft Bill.
	On the main point, as I made clear, we are keen to see a draft Bill that will spell out, in greater detail than is implied in the assurances given by Ministers, the information that will be published at the time of a referendum. That has been a part of our discussions with the Government.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, for the record I should say that we shall not move Amendment No. 57. The noble Baroness can concentrate on the main amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, that is helpful. Amendment No. 4, a matter of considerable concern to us, was a subject of the package that has been described. We have had assurances, including from the Dispatch Box this afternoon, that the Government will do their best to publish a Bill with a view to it being subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. I have said before, but perhaps I had better repeat it, that I understand that the Government, by definition, cannot foresee the unforeseeable, which may make it impossible—if I can put it as high as that—to be able to pursue that. I have faith in the Government. They have every intention, as matters stand at the moment and as they are foreseen, of producing a draft Bill and we shall get stuck into that.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I put down two Written Questions on the powers and responsibilities, one to the Minister's department which he kindly answered. He referred me to the White Paper, but I am not much clearer about what powers will be transferred although it is clear that a few functions and a few advisory roles will be transferred. On 17th March I also put down a Written Question to DEFRA to which I have received no reply. Can the Minister tell me why the Government do not reply to Written Questions when there are important legislative matters before the House to which their replies are relevant? It makes it that much harder to contribute to the debate.
	I can only presume that none of DEFRA's powers will be transferred to the regional assemblies, only a few advisory functions. I therefore support what my noble friend said in moving Amendment No. 4. Unless one knows what the powers, functions and responsibilities are, the electorate voting in the referendums will certainly be no wiser than we are now.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Earl's final point gives the game away—

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have not spoken yet.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, nobody else was standing up. My problem, since coming to this House, is that I cannot get used to a Front Bench where three Members speak. It does not happen in another place, so I apologise.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we were all being very polite, looking across at our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches to see whether anyone there wished to speak. I make only one point—across the House to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. My understanding was that the Liberal Democrats, both at Second Reading and in Committee were very concerned that, if people were going to vote in a referendum, they should at least understand the powers, functions and responsibilities of the new assemblies. If that information is not in the Bill, there is no guarantee at all.
	The Government said that they have made their best endeavours. But there is a contrast between the very genuine, very open and extremely honest way of responding from the Dispatch Box of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the utterances of his ministerial colleagues in another place, which are enough to make us suspicious that we might not see a draft Bill before a referendum is held. Therefore, to serve the public, there should be a requirement. It is not impossible to do it. There is time to produce a Bill, especially if the Government know exactly what the powers, functions and responsibilities will be, as they have claimed several times. If there is not much doubt about that, the Bill should not be delayed.
	I should like to think that the Liberal Democrats would join us in insisting that the public are at least assured in the Bill that, before a referendum is called, a draft Bill will be available to them with all the information that they require. I therefore support my noble friend wholeheartedly.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry that I jumped the gun; it was a genuine mistake. I have explained to my colleagues in another place how the system in this House works, and they never believe me. In response to the final words of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, we are confident that when people vote in a referendum they will be aware of the functions, powers and plans for the elected regional assembly. It is true that even a draft Bill is not an Act at that point, but a clear statement will be available to the electorate. I do not know how long it will be—certainly not as long as the White Paper. It will set out the issues central to the debate that takes place and what people want to know about the new body before choosing or not choosing to have an elected regional assembly.
	I am not hiding behind the fact that we do not need the Bill to do that. A clear statement of how the Government intend to take forward the changes would be fine. I fully accept that Ministers' words are not legislation. Words spoken in Parliament can now be taken into account in court cases in a way that previously they could not be. But we are being genuine. As we said in Committee, and as Nick Raynsford said, we will do our best to publish a draft Bill to establish the regional assemblies. We would really like to be able to do that and to have the draft Bill scrutinised—obviously there is a key role for parliamentary scrutiny. It would be fine if we could make the draft Bill available for that. But we would not want to allow problems in doing that to delay the first referendum or referendums. By the first referendum, our statement on which the Bill will be based will be available to the electorate.
	I have not been asked a specific question on the following point, but it comes to mind immediately. If we make a statement to the electorate on their area and on what the regional assembly's functions will be, it will still be up to Parliament to pass the Bill. Parliament would have to do that knowing that there had been a referendum. There would be a Bill only if there was a "Yes" vote. Therefore, one would expect that Parliament would work on the basis that the referendum was based on a certain set of parameters. That is the basis on which we would go forward.
	We wish to do our best, but I cannot forecast what will happen between now and when the drafting starts. Sometimes parliamentary draftsmen have an infinite capacity to come up with a quick amendment overnight. But it is more difficult to produce a Bill over a weekend, a week or a month. It is a valuable commodity. We must make sure that the draftsmen can prioritise their work within the legislative programme. It is simply not possible to be as precise as noble Lords and noble Baronesses would like.
	I apologise on behalf of the Government for the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has not received a reply to his Written Question. Frankly, there is no excuse for there not having been an Answer in the past few days—I am certain of that. I shall insist that a reply is available to the noble Earl before today's proceedings finish; otherwise, I shall not finish. There is a difficulty. Questions relating to legislation must have a degree of priority. The noble Earl should have had the Answer by now.
	I cannot be more precise. Nick Raynsford sent the letter to his colleague in another place. Our commitment stands. I cannot guarantee anything except that, before a referendum takes place, a statement about the powers and the functions of the assembly will be available to the electorate. I cannot provide details on that now, because I can only rely on the White Paper and there is obviously much more work to be done. The electorate will not go to the polling stations not knowing what they are voting for.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that commitment. Even if he and I must just sit here waiting for the Answer, we will wait.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, this is a crucial part of the whole debate and the whole Bill. As I said when moving the amendment, we are concerned at being told that we will have a referendum at the end of next year and that it does not really matter what the boundaries are, what the regional assembly will do, or what it will cost. Nothing seems to matter, except having the referendum at the end of next year.
	We all think—on my side of the House, certainly—that, if we are going to have a referendum, the public must have the relevant information and have secure knowledge of what a regional assembly might do. Governments can change their view. I have often said that, even when the Conservatives were in power, policy could be changed just by changing the Minister. Who is to know whether the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will be the Minister at the time of a referendum next year? Who knows whether the Deputy Prime Minister will be running this part of the show?
	We do not doubt the noble Lord's commitment, and we accept what he says about what he thinks that he will able to do. But the public should know what the regional assemblies will do. We have had two Bills relating to local government in the past five years. That has worked reasonably well. As the Minister said, they can be scrutinised. However, I suspect that someone somewhere is beginning to write the Bill even now.
	We should insist on the amendment. The public must be aware of the functions and responsibilities of the assemblies and the way they will be run. We should test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 113; Not-Contents, 151.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 1, line 10, leave out "two" and insert "three"

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 6 and 8. We are now going to talk about the soundings. We have had a number of statements from Ministers about the soundings. We know that in a very short time now we shall at least hear the result of the soundings. Whether we shall hear it area by area, or only from the area that the Secretary of State selects for having a referendum, we do not know—and there is a great deal that we do not know. We also do not know what the Secretary of State will regard as a level of interest. One could have a level of interest as low as 1 per cent, which in a region that has eight million voters could be considered rather a lot of people, but would still only be 1 per cent. In an area that has only 2½ million people, the 1 per cent would be fewer in number. Whether that would constitute a level of interest, I do not know. There is no definition of a level of interest.
	The Secretary of State must reasonably expect that a referendum in a region would yield a "Yes" vote before he calls a referendum. That is the purpose of the amendment. He ought to have at least a feeling that, on the basis of the evidence collected, the likelihood would be that if a referendum were called it would receive support. The Minister may argue against that, but the Secretary of State could not say that there is a level of interest as defined by him for a referendum to be called—and incur all the expenditure that goes with it—without any understanding as to whether there would be a reasonable outcome.
	Nobody is asking the Secretary of State to predict the outcome. Nobody is asking him to back only a sure-run thing. However, there really ought to be, on the basis of the evidence, at least a fighting chance that an election could be won. The Government might argue that the whole point of a referendum is to test public opinion. In that case, why bother about a level of interest? Why not test public opinion in all eight areas? We know that they cannot all be done at once, because the Government say that that is not possible—it would overburden the Boundary Committee and all those people who have to be involved with reorganisation of local government. Therefore, it is only likely to be one, two or at the most three. If that is the case, will the Government tell us not only the level of interest in the particular region or regions that are going to be selected, but what the level of interest is in all of the regions at the same time? They have all now been sounded. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether there has been any increase in the number of responses from 4,000, which we were told of at the Committee stage. If one is talking about 4,000 responses from the whole of the country, then one really has to question what constitutes a level of interest in any region.
	Calling a referendum triggers an extremely costly process—we have heard that almost to the point of tedium. That is not a personal criticism of the Minister, but he does have to keep repeating it, because we have to keep pressing the point. We have heard time and time again that the process is going to take a long time—that there could not be a referendum until next autumn. Whether it will be a particular date in the autumn, I do not know. It could be in September, October or November. It will not be at Christmas, because we have just been told that that would not be a good time. That means that this Bill could be passed in May, June or July, and still allow a referendum to take place in the autumn. We also know that the earliest possibility of a regional assembly being set up is 2006.
	So we know that it is a long drawn-out process, and will be very expensive. We know that the costs at this stage cannot be precise, because they will depend upon the level of upheaval in local authorities. We certainly know today from the Government, with Liberal Democrat support, that there will be a second option of local government reorganisation. We know that it goes hand in hand with regional assemblies, since the Liberal Democrats have supported the Government, and is now a fait accompli. Therefore, we know that there will be reorganisation. That will involve either abolition of county councils and keeping all the districts, or abolition of county councils and a serious merging of a number of districts, or abolition of the districts and turning the counties into unitary authorities.
	We know that there will be major upheaval in those areas that vote for a regional assembly and that it is a long and costly process. We also know that there will be much anxiety in those areas among people for their jobs and their futures. There will be a great deal of campaigning on both sides. It will not be simply on party political lines. It will be town and country; it will be council versus council; and it will be councillor versus councillor.
	The Bill should provide an assurance that the Secretary of State will not call for a regional assembly referendum in an area where the evidence does not justify the enormous expenditure that will be incurred by the Boundary Committee, the desk exercise of drawing up the required options—and we now know that there will be at least two, possibly three or more—for local government reorganisation, and the referendum itself. That is important. We do not know in what format we are going to be told. We do not know whether there will simply be a statement to both Houses of Parliament. We do not know if there will be a ritzy glitzy presentation somewhere in the country, where Ministers will meet with the public and have a staged announcement. We have heard a rumour—and I confess that is all it is—that there is to be a major announcement in the North East in a very short time. Whatever it is—and I make no judgment—it would be helpful to know what format the notification will be. Will it be by statement? Will it be by something more formal to both Houses of Parliament? Will it be announced to Parliament before anybody else? Will it affect all eight regions of the country? Will we know region by region what the level of interest is? I believe that the level of interest should be such that there is more than a probability that it is for a referendum for a regional assembly. I beg to move.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, this is a deeply flawed Bill, but, in my view, no part is more flawed than that which gives the Secretary of State power to order a referendum if he has considered the level of interest in the holding of one. What level of interest is he going to consider sufficient? The Bill does not say. We have never been told.
	We are told that the Secretary of State will consider the result of the sounding exercise in a particular region. However, what is the good of that if we are not told what kind of outcome in the sounding exercise he will consider sufficient to justify a referendum? Again we are not told that. And what is the good of a sounding exercise if only a handful of people and organisations have ever heard of it? I have not met a single person in the North West who has heard of the sounding exercise there.
	To put it mildly, there is a real risk of the Secretary of State being misled by the result of a sounding exercise, attaching importance to the loud voices of a few fanatics and ignoring the lack of interest of the vast majority. He may, in the North West, for instance, heed what emanates from the regional convention. However, I remind him of the excellent comments made by Chris Moncrieff, formerly of the Press Association, who told us that far from there being a strong popular body in the North West calling itself the North West Convention, there are a handful of people operating from a dilapidated garage at the back of a pub. That must be the case, because I have never heard of anyone who has any business with the North West Convention. We know only that for some remarkable reason it is chaired by a Church of England bishop. No one has heard a word of it or a word from it.
	I spoke in an earlier debate of how all parties on the Lancashire County Council oppose the holding of a referendum. A few hours ago, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who moved first from the Front Bench to the Back Benches and then from the Chamber—I am not surprised in view of what he said today—talked eloquently of how the Liberal Democrats in the North West will be in disarray, having to his mind been sold down the river by their own Front Bench. Yet we run the risk of the council tax payers in the North West being put to the considerable expense of local government reviews and a referendum when the outcome—a "No" vote—may be obvious. And that despite the fact that in the sounding exercise there appeared to be a number of enthusiasts rooting for a referendum.
	What matters is whether people want an elected assembly. It is always artificial and ridiculous to talk about the level of interest in a referendum. What matters is whether people want an elected assembly, not whether they want a referendum. It seems to me that the only sensible way of dealing with this is by requiring the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that it is more probable than not that in any referendum there would be a majority in favour.
	It is the kind of question that others have to ask themselves, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, now sitting on the Front Bench, will advise her noble friend. Is it right to authorise a prosecution in this case? Is it more likely than not that a jury will convict? Why on earth should not the Secretary of State in this case be required to ask himself a simple question: is the game worth the candle? Is it more probable than not that if there is a referendum, money will not have been wasted on a local government review and a majority of the people in the region will vote for an elected assembly?
	If he is not so satisfied, he is at great risk of wasting public money. Certainly, it is ridiculous that he must only inquire of himself whether there is an unspecified level of interest in the holding of a referendum. That is not the real question in any event, as the Minister, who has been most sensible throughout all our deliberations, knows perfectly well. What matters is whether the people want an elected assembly. If the Secretary of State is not satisfied in his own mind that it is more probable than not that they will vote for the elected assembly, he has no right to waste public money on local government reviews and on the holding of a referendum.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, there is a real danger that the soundings exercise, which does not seem to have gone far, has hit only organisations. The Secretary of State sent out the exercise to a few organisations and we are not sure which ones. However, the organisations will not be voting in favour of a referendum; it will be the local electorate. There appears to be a great paucity of information on what the local electorate feel.
	The important aspect is whether a majority of the electorate is in favour, but we also need to know the outcome of the soundings throughout the system. That includes the regional chambers and probably the local authorities. It certainly includes the business community because I know that on the whole it is largely against proceeding, as are the voluntary organisations.
	While their views should not be those which decide the issue—that should be the electorate—we need to know how the soundings exercise is divided up among those organisations and the electors. It is important that the exercise, which has been shrouded in timidity and secrecy, is brought to this House and that we know on what basis the Secretary of State intends to make his decision.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, will the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, explain to me how in practical terms one would consult with the electorate in a region without having a referendum? Surely, that is what the referendum is designed to do. While I have sympathy with the theory behind the noble Baroness's problems, I fail to see any practical way in which one could discover the electorate's wishes without having the very referendum we have set out to provide.
	Furthermore, will the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, accept that it is difficult to imagine why on earth the Government would proceed with a referendum in a particular area if they thought they were likely to lose it?

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, we understood that the soundings exercise was intended to test the views of the people in a region. The way in which those views are tested seems to be a matter of the Government's policy. Equally, before the Secretary of State makes a decision, it must be possible to identify whether he has consulted electors; whether organisations have consulted electors or just a plethora of others who turned up on the day for the ride; or whether he merely consulted business and voluntary organisations which may or may not reflect the wishes of the electorate.
	If the policy and these proposals stem from the soundings exercises, the sounding exercises must be robust; the description as to where they have taken place must be robust; and the answers must be robust. This House, together with another place, must be able to see them.

Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, there are ways in which public opinion can be tested. In the north-east of England, which I know rather well, we have a principal newspaper, the Journal, which ran a campaign in favour of a referendum and in favour of a regional authority. The newspaper has done a good deal of work on this, and I have mentioned before in the course of our debates the results of that work.
	Some 45 per cent were against the proposal for a regional assembly, while 35 per cent were for it. A breakdown of the inquiry revealed interestingly that in Tyne and Wear, a densely populated area situated at the bottom end of the region and governed by a unitary authority, 39 per cent declared that they were in favour, while 41 per cent were against. But in Northumberland, a vast and lovely county that is not nearly as densely populated as Tyne and Wear, 27 per cent were in favour of a regional authority while 53 per cent were against it. That speaks volumes for what would happen if eventually a referendum was held to decide on whether we should have a regional assembly.
	Ways can be found of measuring public opinion, some of which have been tried in the north-east of England.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, at col. 1542 of Hansard for 13th March last, during the proceedings in Committee, I raised the matter of having received a number of complaints about the way in which the sounding exercises had been carried out. In response, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, invited those who wished to lodge complaints to send them to him. I know that he has now received several complaints, copies of which have been sent to me as well as to other noble Lords.
	It appears that the whole thing has been deeply unsatisfactory. In my own view, the sounding exercise has been a complete farce. I wrote to the Minister and I know that he has received my letter. In it I said that the constitutional conventions—which pretended to be semi-official—even if they have done the job properly, have certainly misled people, in particular given that in many cases they have been chaired by influential figures such as bishops, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, informed the House a few moments ago. There is no question but that this sounding exercise has not achieved and could not possibly have achieved what was intended because it simply has not been conducted properly. People up and down the country have not been given the opportunity to put forward their views as regards whether they want to be involved in a referendum—which was what the sounding exercise was all about.
	I shall repeat what I said to the Minister in my letter: the sounding exercise has become so discredited that, although I am afraid it would delay matters, we ought to hold another exercise, one that is carried out properly and ensures that everyone in England who might be affected by the proposals knows that the exercise is taking place and is given an opportunity to participate in it. Furthermore, opportunity should be given for people to discuss what it is all about. We should not have a system under which certain self-appointed people have taken on the task of trying to represent the views of an area to the Minister. In fact they have consulted on only a very narrow basis, thus preventing many others from embarking on the consultation at all.
	I wish to make one further point, although perhaps it does not directly concern the amendment before us. The Minister and I had a dispute about the EU map of the administrative areas in England. It appears that we are in possession of different maps issued by the same organisation, the European Commission. My map does not show that there is such a place called "England", but the Minister insists that England is included on his Commission map. Of course it may be that the Commission has now moved on and caught up with the fact that there is a country known as England, and has corrected its maps accordingly. Perhaps the Minister would not mind commenting on that.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I intend to raise a somewhat tangential point, but I suspect that, having listened to this debate, the Minister might find himself in agreement with me on it. I rise to say only that we would not be having this debate had we had at some point in the past a Bill setting out a formal procedure for holding referendums. That suggestion has been carefully avoided every time it has been raised.
	The fact is that, under the terms of this Bill, half of a small minority plus one can bring about a profound constitutional change in this country. The Minister can do his best to assess the view held in a particular region using consultation, opinion polls and so forth, amounting in effect to a campaign. But, as we saw in Wales before it secured its assembly, despite doing all that, it does not make a great deal of difference as to whether the electorate will turn out to vote. As a separate issue, we ought to put into legislation a form of procedure governing the way in which referendums are held and further governing the number of votes required to bring about any form of major change.
	I know that an amendment has been tabled which we shall reach in due course, but this matter is extremely relevant to the debate on the amendment before us. I say that because we would not be considering the concerns that have been expressed on the matter if such a formalised procedure, one agreed by everyone in the first instance, had been set up.

Lord Dixon: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness who spoke from the Liberal Benches. How on earth do you test public opinion other than by holding a referendum? If you want to test public opinion then you have to hold a referendum about holding a referendum.
	I have been informed that the people consulted in the North East were—

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not agree that, during our debates at the previous stage, he went to great pains to intervene in my remarks to tell me that people have been sounded out in his area? He went on to give the results of that sounding exercise. Thus the idea that people cannot be sounded out simply is not true. The noble Lord himself gave evidence that that was the case.

Lord Dixon: My Lords, I shall go to great pains for the noble Baroness once again and repeat what I said in Committee. I sought to make the point that if you want to test public opinion, the only way that that can be done is by holding a referendum.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, surely the noble Lord understands that that is not what the Bill says. He will agree with me that it would have been perfectly possible to have brought forward a Bill in which no provision was made for the Secretary of State to take account of a sounding exercise. However, the Bill states that he must do so. Will the noble Lord please address himself to that and not to a fanciful Bill that does not exist.

Lord Dixon: My Lords, it would cost twice as much to hold two referendums.
	I said in Committee that, in the North East, I had been informed that the people who responded were the members of the North East Assembly, local authorities, local MPs and MEPs, private, public and voluntary bodies, political parties, arts bodies, universities and colleges, black and ethnic minority communities, faiths, charities and trade unions, the health sector and transport bodies. Most declared that they were in favour.
	The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, referred to the Newcastle Journal. He may have been referring to the newspaper's own opinion poll, but I do not know where the figures came from. However, I have the figures that were released by Durham County Council, one of the two-tier authorities that everyone is trying to protect in case it is forced to accept a unitary authority.
	The council released the results of its sounding exercise, which produced 7,000 responses. Support for holding a referendum was 66 per cent in favour; only 24 per cent against. Everyone is trying to save the two-tier authorities from regional assemblies and one-tier local government, but the interesting thing is that support for establishing a regional assembly was 66 per cent; and only 24 per cent were against. As many people as possible have been consulted.
	Some noble Lords said that they had not been consulted. I was never consulted as a Member of the House, but I was consulted as a member of a political party, because I attend my party meetings. At one party meeting that I attended, a soundings document had been circulated for political parties to respond to, and we gave a response. So there is a great deal of support in the North East for a regional assembly.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Waddington reminded the House, Clause 1(4), which the amendment would amend, states:
	"The first condition is that the Secretary of State has considered the level of interest in the region in the holding of such a referendum".
	That is not an objective test; it is a subjective test. On the intervention made by the Liberal Democrats, I remark that, as I understand it, the Crown Prosecution Service proceeds to a prosecution only if it considers that there is a better than 50:50 chance of success. I of course acknowledge that it will not know how the case will turn out until it has been tested, but it judges that on the basis of its assessment.
	In the run-up to the 1964 general election, there was a Labour Member of Parliament called, I believe, Collins. He constantly asked Home Office questions about prisons and constantly pressed Home Office initiatives. On one such occasion, he argued for the abolition of the roll-call in prisons. After that appeared in the press, one prisoner wrote to the press to say how absurd that was and to ask what would be done instead. The prisoner postulated, hypothetically, the governor and a senior prison officer, walking around the prison grounds and the governor saying in conversation, "I say, Jack, there seem to be fewer prisoners around this week than there were last week".
	On the same basis, I postulate the Deputy Prime Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, travelling through a region such as Yorkshire or the West Midlands and the Deputy Prime Minister saying after a while, "I say, Jeff, I tell you something: there seems to be quite a lot of interest in holding a referendum in this region". As I understand it, that would qualify as consideration—the Deputy Prime Minister would have considered the level of interest and, on that subjective basis, fulfilled the condition in the Bill. However, that does not sound like an an objective test.
	Incidentally, Mr Collins' story ended happily: he became Parliamentary Secretary at the Home Office after the 1964 general election. But under the Bill, it seems increasingly likely that the subtle soundings might have been better conducted a little later in the parliamentary process than they were.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, in answer to one question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I do not have a precise figure, but we have now received more than 5,000 responses, so the figure has slightly improved since Committee, although I do not know the exact figure. We are still receiving results, as we have made clear during the Bill's passage.
	Having perused the Marshalled List, judging by later amendments, we may have this debate about four times—certainly more than once. I do not know that I can say anything different to what I said in Committee: the Secretary of State cannot operate on a hunch; he must come to Parliament to make a Statement about his judgment on the soundings.
	A later amendment provides for publishing the results of the soundings. People were told that unless they demanded confidentiality for some reason, the results would be publicly available. We shall publish a summary and, of course, we shall do so for the whole country. The whole point is that the Secretary of State must make a judgment. Please do not hold this example against me, but let us say that he judges that the soundings show that there is interest in holding a referendum in at least one region. In order to say that, he must be able to say that there is not such a level of interest in the other eight regions—or, rather, seven, because London does not count for that purpose. So he will not make a judgment only in the area in which he judges that the soundings show that there is interest in holding a referendum. I choose my words carefully, because that is what is involved—interest in holding a referendum, which may not be the same as interest in having an elected regional assembly. That goes to the heart of Amendment No. 6, which would amend the condition so that the Secretary of State must prejudge the result of the referendum before he forms a judgment on the soundings.
	I repeat that Ministers have not seen any results of the soundings and have no figures at present, but when making a judgment on the soundings shortly after the Bill receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State cannot be expected to work out whether the referendum would be successful. First, that is not his job; secondly, the public, who will make the final decision on a referendum, will not have the available information because we shall not have had the boundary review, which is, as I said, nine months or a year down the road. So he cannot then prejudge whether there would be a successful, or "Yes", vote in a referendum. Amendment No. 6 is impractical in relation to the process. Given the timing of the Boundary Committee's recommendations, for a start, that does not make sense.
	It has been asserted that a regional assembly referendum is advisory, to give an expression of view of those in a region about a regional assembly. The purpose of the referendum is to determine whether people want an elected regional assembly.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that we need rules. I was in another department when the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 was passed, so I must be careful to name its title correctly—although naturally I voted for it. Along with another place, the House passed that Act, which lays down many ground rules.
	As we have made clear when discussing the Bill, although certain duties are left to the Secretary of State, the Electoral Commission, which was set up under that Act, is required to make judgments on questions, the legibility of the argument, the preamble, and so on. So it is not a question of doing it as we want or making it up as we go along. There are ground rules for referendums on the statute book. It is true that the Bill represents a unique departure—we have not done anything such as this for local government—but I count that as a plus, not as a minus.
	Amendment No. 6 is the main amendment in the group. The others are consequential. The way that the groupings have been arranged mean that our next debate, on Amendments Nos. 7 and 42, will cover some of the same ground. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, constantly referred to the letter that he wrote to me; he never once mentioned that he had received a reply. But he has—I hope.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, my Lords.

Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, that is right. I was sweating a bit because there is no date on the letter; I keep being told not to date my letters because they can take a while to leave the office. The third paragraph of my reply states:
	"When assessing the response of any organisation to our soundings exercise, we are looking at how representative the response is, and the reliability and robustness of any surveys or opinion polls that they have conducted. We made it clear that the response of organisations would be strengthened if it was clear that they had consulted widely".
	I do not know why the chairs of some of these organisations have not graced us with their presence in these debates. I have not held any discussions with anybody; I have obviously seen the letters which have been sent in, and they will receive a reply. If the allegations undermine the reliability and robustness of what organisations are sending in, they are making a rod for their own back. That will not count very well, and it does not matter who is chairing the organisations. If people have been denied opportunities, or the reliability and robustness of the surveys have been fixed, as it were, we need to know how they have been conducted and that there has been wide consultation. I see nothing wrong in that.
	I cannot comment on the opinion polls—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the Minister for giving way. I have received his letter, as a matter of fact; it is dated 7th April, so I have not had time to assimilate exactly what he said. Perhaps at a later stage I will come back after I have assimilated what he said to see whether there is some light in it.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is so much light in the letter—it has only five paragraphs. I am tempted to put it on the record, but I will not. I am sorry it was late. However, it is obviously relevant to the Bill and to the debate to get replies to noble Lords. That is why I am distressed at what the noble Earl said about his delayed answer from DEFRA, which is being dealt with. From that point of view, it is important. My noble friend can come back when he has had time to assimilate the gems in the other paragraphs, the ones I am not quoting.
	Frankly, asking the Secretary of State to prejudge the result of the referendum when he makes a judgment on the soundings is wholly impractical, if only—and this is a substantial reason—because the work of the Boundary Committee is such that he could not form a judgment because he would not know what options it was suggesting for the consequential changes in local government. Therefore, I hope the amendment will not be pressed to the vote, but I somehow fear it will be.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right—this is unique, and for that reason we are looking for ways in which to safeguard the public interest. My noble friend Lord Waddington was right when he said that as many people as he has asked had not heard of the soundings exercise. That applies in many parts of the country. My standard question is, "Who knows about regional government and have you had any contact whatsoever with any organisation sounding out your views on a regional assembly?" I have yet to have a positive answer.
	The Minister said that the Government would measure the robustness of some of the responses. At some meetings—we have had evidence of this during the course of our debates—unless people wishing to attend the meeting professed an interest in having a regional assembly, they were not admitted. If that is the case, and there is not to be an investigation into such allegations, how is the Secretary of State to know that this happened?
	I should like to refer to the Constitution Committee's report which we had on the first day in Committee. It expressed a concern affecting a principal part of the constitution, in which it took a fairly high interest. One of its concerns was the lack of criteria that would have to be met to trigger a referendum in a particular region. The Bill will give the Secretary of State the power to trigger a referendum. He will do so on the basis of a level of interest. The level of interest is not defined; we have had no clarification or enlightenment from the Minister in his reply to us, so we simply do not know on what basis he will trigger a referendum.
	The Constitution Committee was also concerned about the public participation in consultation. The map referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, could be prophetic. It could be a picture of the country when the Bill has materialised and fulfilled the Government's ambitions of having regional assemblies and single-tier local government below them. If that were the case, Scotland, Wales and Ireland would have country national government but England would not. England would be fragmented into nine parts and would, I believe, lose its integrity as a country.
	The Minister has not told us exactly what the soundings are, what they are meant to be, the level of interest or the measurement. As my noble friend Lord Brooke said, it will be a subjective judgment on the part of the Secretary of State.
	Having been a Minister and sat where the noble Lord is sitting, I am staggered that he is in the middle of passing through Parliament a Bill of this magnitude, of very high constitutional importance, and he says that the department— either the officials or his ministerial colleagues—have not even allowed him to have any information about the responses.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is a very unfair and, if I might say so, underhand way of putting the way I responded. The Bill is going through Parliament; we have made it quite clear that only after Royal Assent will a judgment be made. It would be quite wrong, while the Bill is going through Parliament and while the soundings are being assessed and still being received, if Ministers started nitpicking over issues before the assessments had been made. When they are made, they will be put before Ministers, and that will be the right time. It would quite wrong, while we are in the middle of the Bill's proceedings, to start sifting through individual assessments. One would not be able to read the lot, anyway, so we would have to look at summaries and then maybe dip into them after the assessment analysis has been completed. It is not a question of not being shown. I get shown what I ask for, and in this case, we have agreed it would be quite wrong for Ministers to have that level of detail at present.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my point was that the Minister was saying he does not even have any knowledge of them. If that is the case, I really am staggered. I am certainly not saying that the noble Lord should prejudge. In fact, we are alarmed that the consultation process was so short. It finished on 3rd March when the Bill had hardly started its proceedings in this House. Therefore, the consultation could have continued for a little while yet and the judgment could have been made when the Bill received Royal Assent, if that is when Ministers will be making judgments. It would not take very many hours to sift through 5,000 responses.
	The Minister is not able to say what the level of interest would be. He has not said whether we will know it region by region. He has said that the level of interest in one area could be determined and a referendum called, but it is possible and, I should have thought, even probable, that the level of interest in one or more areas of the country could be comparable. In that case, if it is more than the two or three areas that the noble Lord feels are important when it comes to calling a referendum, another judgment will have to be made, about which we know nothing. We do not know what criteria will be applied. Answers to pertinent questions will not be available until after the Bill receives Royal Assent. I call that very undemocratic. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
	*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 143.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
	"( ) The second condition is that the Secretary of State has concluded on the basis of evidence available to him that there is substantial support from the business community, regional chambers, local authorities, cultural and voluntary sector and local electors within the region for the holding of such a referendum and such evidence has been laid before both Houses of Parliament."

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 42. The amendments seek to make explicit on the face of the Bill precisely who must be consulted by the Secretary of State before he calls a referendum. The list includes business, the culture and voluntary sectors, regional chambers and local authorities. We believe the amendments bring clarity to the otherwise vague requirement for the Secretary of State to consider the level of interest in a region.
	We have learnt from experience—and certainly from what has been said in our debates—that it would be unsatisfactory to leave the soundings exercise entirely to a subjective judgment of the Secretary of State. Before a major constitutional question is put to the electorate of a region in a referendum, it is right that Parliament should scrutinise the consultations carried out by the Secretary of State. If I have understood the Minister correctly, we shall get an opportunity to do so, but we have not yet heard of the format under which that will take place.
	The amendments ensure greater transparency. In Committee, the Minister agreed about the importance of openness and promised that a summary of reasons for the Secretary of State's decision would be published. Will there be an opportunity to scrutinise the basis for the taking of that decision and can the Minister give any further assurances on Report? I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, all my assurances will be kept. I have no new assurances to give and I do not need to qualify the assurances I have given already. I hope that that will be helpful.
	The bodies specified in Amendment No. 7 which were in a position to comment on the level of interest in a region have been able to put forward their views as part of the soundings exercise. I am informed that many such bodies are among the 5,000 or so which have responded.
	In Committee, I said that the Secretary of State would explain to Parliament his decision on which region or regions should undergo a local government review, with a view to holding a referendum, after the Bill receives Royal Assent. We intend to publish a summary of the views received during the soundings exercise.
	Amendment No. 42, which the noble Baroness did not say much about, is similar to a group of amendments debated in Committee. Its effect would be to exclude—this is perhaps nitpicking, but we are talking about legislation—the consideration of views, information and evidence from other groups, including non-council tax payers, trade unions, the Local Government Association and the Isles of Scilly local authority.
	Since last year we have actively sought the views of individuals and organisations. We do not believe that the amendment is needed. Many of the bodies listed in Amendment No. 7 have been covered and have had ample opportunity to submit their views. I hope that they have all done so and that no one will be missing when we look at the final list.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Quoting from his letter, in his earlier reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, the Minister explained how the responses would be judged. It is interesting that the consultees were not told how their responses would be judged. For instance, if a voluntary sector body had been told that the quality of its response would be judged on how it had communicated and taken soundings from other people in its organisation, we might have seen a great deal more activity.
	A body that I know of was approached but could not afford to take the necessary kind of soundings. Its reply will be considered as simply a statement from a particular voluntary organisation and will be judged as not having taken more soundings. However, the Secretary of State could subjectively—we do not know—simply say that because the body represents ", its reply must be the view of "'s members; its membership is Y and therefore that must be the view of that many people. We do not know the answers to these questions or how the replies will be judged.
	What we have been told about this issue is unsatisfactory. I take on board what the Minister said about Amendment No. 42. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 2, line 6, leave out second "that" and insert "the"

Lord Rooker: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 9 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10. The amendments are required to tidy up the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to Clause 1(6) which was agreed to in Committee. The Government do not seek to overturn the amendment. We are happy to retain the revised Clause 1(6) within the Bill provided that we can make these two small changes to Clause 1. The amendments are designed to remove slight inconsistencies and to give full effect to the noble Baroness's amendment.
	Amendment No. 9 seeks to make a small improvement to the drafting; Amendment No. 10 addresses an inconsistency between subsection (8) and the new subsection (6) in Clause 1. I can go into further detail if required but I hope that there will not be need to do so. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall not ask the Minister to go into further detail. I am grateful to him for accepting the amendment and for the letter he sent me in advance.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton: My Lords, if Amendment No. 10 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 11 standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham.

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 2, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert "If the Secretary of State has cause to think that the level of interest has changed materially as mentioned in subsection (6), that subsection does not apply but he must not make an order under subsection (1) unless for the purposes of subsection (4) he considers—"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 12:
	After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
	"LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFERENDUMS
	(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State makes an order under section 1 to cause a referendum to be held in a region about the establishment of an elected assembly for that region.
	(2) The Secretary of State must by order cause a referendum to be held in each county area in the region about the government's proposals for the structure of local government in that area.
	(3) A county area is an area in the region in relation to which both a county council and one or more district councils have functions.
	(4) But if the government's proposals for a county area include an option providing for a local authority whose area includes any part of the area of more than one county area, the county area for the purposes of this section is the combined area of each of those county areas.
	(5) The government's proposals for the structure of local government—
	(a) are such of the recommendations of the Boundary Committee for England made in pursuance of a direction under Part 2 of this Act as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate subject to such modifications (if any) as he proposes to make in pursuance of section 15(3);
	(b) must include at least two options for structural change (within the meaning of Part 2 of the Local Government Act 1992) in relation to each county area in the region.
	(6) The date of a referendum held in pursuance of an order under subsection (2) must be—
	(a) specified in the order;
	(b) the same date as the date specified in the order under section 1.
	(7) An order under subsection (2) must not be made before the end of the period of 6 weeks starting with the day on which the Secretary of State receives the recommendations of the Boundary Committee in pursuance of a direction under Part 2 of this Act.
	(8) The Secretary of State by order—
	(a) may vary an order under subsection (2);
	(b) must revoke such an order if he revokes the order under section 1.
	(9) A Minister of the Crown may by order make such provision as he thinks appropriate in connection with a referendum held in pursuance of an order under subsection (2).
	(10) An order under subsection (9) may—
	(a) make provision for the creation of offences;
	(b) apply or incorporate with or without modifications or exceptions any provision of any enactment (whenever passed or made and including this Act) relating to elections or referendums;
	(c) modify any provision of Chapter 2 of Part 7 of the 2000 Act as it applies to a referendum held in pursuance of an order under section 1."

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Baroness spoke fully to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. Since then, after reading it carefully, as a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee I should like to ask the noble Baroness about the four order-making powers in the amendment, with which I am sure she is familiar.
	Subsection (2) relates to the order that the Secretary of State may give to trigger a referendum. Under subsection (8), he may, by order, vary or revoke the order. Under subsection (9) he may make such provision as he thinks appropriate in connection with a referendum. Of particular importance among the features of that order is that, under subsection (10), he may make provision for the creation of offences.
	I am sure that the noble Baroness is familiar with her amendment and I should like to ask her what status these orders will have. Will they need parliamentary approval? If so, will that be by negative or affirmative resolution? I should like the noble Baroness to comment particularly on the order under subsection (9) because that makes provision for the creation of offences.
	The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has not had time to consider the amendment because it has only recently been tabled. That is why I am asking these questions.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Clause 27(1) states:
	"A power in this Act to make an order or regulations must be exercised by statutory instrument".
	Clause 27(2) provides for that to be by affirmative resolution and states that,
	"a statutory instrument must not be made unless a draft ... has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House".
	That applies to the orders which are referred to in my amendment as well as to those which are already in the Bill.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much for that information.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 129; Not-Contents, 79.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.24 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

East Africa

Lord Freeman: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether progress to date with the efficient use of resources in East Africa arising from debt relief and increased direct overseas aid is satisfactory.
	My Lords, I thank the Minister for coming to the House to answer the Question. All of us are very conscious of two facts. The first is that the enormous humanitarian crisis unfolding in Iraq must be concentrating not only her mind, but the minds of those in her department. The second is that her energy and experience in East and West Africa is well known and much respected. I look forward to her contribution to the brief debate. I couple that tribute to the Minister and her department with praising the work of the civil servants in London and in East Africa, specifically Kampala. That work is often unsung, but I want to place on record my appreciation, and I hope that of other noble Lords, for their work.
	I declare an interest as chairman of the Busoga Trust, a Christian charity operating in Uganda with the express purpose of digging and maintaining water wells in the districts of Kamuli, Luwero and Busoga in southern Uganda. Over 20 years, some 1,000 wells and water sources have been dug. I pay tribute to all those involved, both in Africa and in the United Kingdom. It may be a modest achievement in comparison with the overall problems in Uganda, but it is nevertheless in my judgment a marvellous contribution to the alleviation of poverty there. I also pay tribute to colleagues in WaterAid and CAFOD with whom I have recently been in touch.
	This brief debate should be addressed to East Africa and aid efficiency. It is important to note that the policy of Her Majesty's Government on direct support to non-governmental organisations active anywhere in the world changed in 2000. In East Africa, that specifically meant that the Government's assistance went to the governments there, in terms of direct aid and support of the budget. That is therefore indirect allocation to specific projects on which the governments of Uganda and other countries in East Africa have decided. I am not criticising that change in policy, but I want to point out that some causes for concern have arisen as a result of it.
	The purpose of the debate is to see how the United Kingdom is helping East African governments to help themselves. I hope that my contribution will be regarded as constructive and positive, and not in any way suggesting interference from these shores. It is certainly not supposed to be paternalistic. We must respect the drive to democracy in East Africa, and encourage it. For example, there have been very encouraging signs recently from Kenya.
	In the time available to me, I want to focus on rural water supplies, because they are so important for the alleviation of poverty. Clean water sources help to reduce infant mortality and bring a dramatic improvement to the quality of life of those who live in rural Africa. Uganda is not a proxy for the whole of East Africa, but in the interests of brevity I want to draw some conclusions from what is going on there.
	We are all delighted that Her Majesty's Government have declared 2003 as the international year of fresh water. The importance of fresh water supplies for the alleviation of poverty and the improvement of health, particularly in rural areas, cannot be repeated often enough. In 2000, the World Health Organisation recognised that about 2.4 billion people around the world lacked access to basic sanitation. In Africa, roughly one-third of the population does not have access to clean water or sanitation facilities. I know from my own personal experience the sight of one dirty well and the filth, squalor and inhumane effects caused by drinking and even collecting that water as compared with a fresh water source.
	The United Nations target is to reduce that lack of access to clean water by one half by 2015. The question is whether that is feasible. We hope that it is, but the United Nations report at Kyoto, in March, indicated doubts about whether the target can be met even by 2030. I ask the Minister to enlighten us as to whether Her Majesty's Government believe that we should stick to the target of halving that lack of access to clean water and better sanitation standards by 2015 and whether the target is still attainable.
	I turn briefly to Uganda. The Government of Uganda have a very strong political commitment to the reduction of poverty. One notes with particular support the Ugandan Government's "Poverty Eradication Action Plan in 2000". However, Uganda is highly dependent on aid, with more than 50 per cent of national expenditure drawn from donations, both governmental and private, from around the world. I pay tribute to the Ugandan Water Minister who, last August, in my conversations with him, said that we must do better than the millennium target of trying to halve lack of access to clean water and sanitation by 2015. We must try to do better, and we must examine how we can do so.
	The most recent statistics from Uganda show that access to clean water in rural areas stands at about 50 per cent and access to good sanitation at about 75 per cent. DfID's country aid stands at £83 million—the latest figure that I have—with the amount allocated to water at £3 million, for a water spend of about 3 per cent.
	In its January 2003 global report which referred—although not exclusively—to Uganda, the National Audit Office looked at how money is being spent around the world. On page 12, it stated:
	"The water sector is . . . characterised by ineffective utilisation and non-sustainability of services. In the rural area"—
	of Uganda—
	"over 30 per cent of rural systems are non-functional, the water handling and storage is often unhygienic, resulting in water from a safe source being contaminated by the time it is consumed. Poor care and maintenance of facilities have rendered many protected water sources, especially boreholes to be abandoned".
	The Ugandan Government commissioned a report, published just a few months ago, in December 2002, looking at how effective the rural water programme was in Uganda. It was only a couple of years ago that the local districts in Uganda started receiving funds directly from the government to spend on trying to improve water sources. A report to the government by independent experts based in Uganda found, first, poor collaboration and co-ordination of the district offices with the non-governmental organisations including overseas charities. Secondly, they found that the procurement process is weakened by political influence which has greatly affected the quality of water and the cost-effective implementation of water plans. Thirdly, they found some financial mismanagement which I am sorry to say has included some corruption and bribery in the awarding of contracts, which is not uncommon around the world. The experts came to the conclusion that, overall, the government were getting very poor value for money in the water programme.
	In May 2002, Mr Lars Christian Moller produced another independent report on Uganda entitled, Is the Water Sector Delivering. He concluded that funding for water in the previous two years had increased by 300 per cent but that production—the supply of fresh water wells—had decreased by 35 per cent, hence increasing the poor value for money. I calculate that of the wells dug in Uganda which are contracted by the local districts with either private sector suppliers or non-governmental organisations and overseas charities, the government may be paying for about 60 per cent of the provision of the well and the Busoga Trust is paying the other 40 per cent. In other words—and I am not complaining about this—we are subsidising the production of those wells. The five-year plan which has been in operation in Uganda since September 2002 estimates that it will be possible to increase the coverage of clean water supply in rural areas from about 50 to 54 per cent, in 2002, to only 58 per cent by 2006, because there is not enough money in the system.
	So what are the solutions? I think that there are three. First, more money must be made available to the Ugandan Government. That has to come either from an increase in resources in Uganda or, preferably, a change in the proportion of UK aid that is allocated to the water sector. Secondly, I think that the Ugandan Government themselves should provide some direct funding to the non-governmental organisations specifically to help to improve hygiene, engineering advice and the proper maintenance of the water wells. Finally, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue—I know that they have tried, but I think that they must continue—to encourage the Government of Uganda to audit the water development programme more thoroughly and more comprehensively.
	We are all on the same side in this. We need a more rapid alleviation of world poverty. That must happen in rural Uganda. I hope that your Lordships will wish the United Kingdom and Ugandan Governments Godspeed in this mission.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for drawing attention to an area of the world and an aspect of the international economy which it would be easy to neglect as our attention is directed to dramatic events elsewhere. I am glad to be able to express my support for his concerns on what is in effect my first day back after three months' study leave. I, too, pay tribute to the Minister for her commitment to world development ideology and action and for the respect in which she is held for that in all parts of your Lordships' Chamber. I shall not detain your Lordships long. I cannot match the statistics quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, but in order to combat the view that is sometimes held that bishops are, generally speaking, generally speaking, I shall do my best to focus on four areas.
	First, in his "State of the Union" speech in January, President Bush expressed the view that Al'Qaeda had attacked US interests in East Africa and may have supporters there. The rights and wrongs of US international economic policy apart, and perhaps asking an obvious question and for an obvious reassurance, is the Minister able to reassure the House that the Government's debt relief policy will not be "adjusted" downwards in order to protect such interests? Can she say, to the contrary, that in the light of the increased instability in Africa, the Government are preparing to act even more strategically in their overseas aid policies?
	The second area is debt relief. Here we enter questions of policy and the fine dividing line between what supposedly "works" and what supposedly "doesn't work". Christian Aid's view has long been that debt relief should not depend on arbitrary fiscal sustainability criteria, which I might add often seem to resemble in macrocosm what SRB indicators often represent locally in microcosm—that is, "You can't get such and such an amount until you have achieved such and such a series of targets". We are not often dealing with countries and economies that can talk that language and get anywhere.
	In this connection, the Government are to be congratulated on shifting policy HIPC style (the acronym stands for "heavily indebted poor countries") towards a situation where they are not just paying off past debts— without which local national economies would be crippled in the long term—but moving East African countries towards a position where they can invest in social and educational development.
	Paul Ladd, of Christian Aid, has presented me with some impressive figures which indicate that Uganda, among other countries, was an early beneficiary from debt relief and enhanced aid, and has therefore managed to abolish user fees for primary education, which has resulted in sustained annual growth rates of over 5 per cent. Would the Minister care to tell us how government policy in this area can be extended along those lines in other areas mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman—for example, in relation to water supply?
	Thirdly, there is the question of progress in debt relief. I am not the world's most brilliant mathematician, as my colleagues will assure noble Lords—or perhaps alarm them by saying—but as I understand them, the figures tell us something different. Ethiopia, whose decision point was November 2001, will not, according to World Bank projections, manage to sustain its debt after the supposed completion point by the third quarter of 2004. Will the Minister comment on Christian Aid's contention that,
	"Even some of the countries that are seen as 'successes' of the scheme are still spending more on servicing their debt than on education or healthcare"?
	I ask that question in a context of profound admiration for what the Government are doing.
	Finally, I think that many people would want to welcome the proposals outlined in January by the right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an international finance facility which would double the amount of development aid provided by the richest countries to the poorest.
	It is commendable that we are seen to be grappling with what seems to me to be the main issue of international, not economy, but justice. If I may put it in theological terms, this is about human beings as stewards rather than exploiters of creation. By "creation" I do not mean merely what is there, produced by nature, but what we help to create: in our stewardship, in terms of increased knowledge, in pushing at the boundaries of knowledge, and in our technology. Does the Minister agree that, laudable as such an initiative is, it can run the risk of appealing to self-interest on the part of the givers rather than being seen as something that is right in its own way?
	I confess that, the more I ponder these issues, the less comfortable I become. I suppose it is partly the result of returning to your Lordships' Chamber in Lent a bit thinner than I was before Christmas and realising that to be a comic microcosmic example of the macrocosmic issue—the need for a fundamental change in the global economy, if, that is, we are to have a just, sustainable and participatory society which has a long-term future.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for introducing this important debate. There are so many areas of the world that must surely demand our attention. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth said, it would be too easy to forget them as the news media focus so intently on Iraq. But when we ask whether aid for Iraq is being taken from the DfID budget, we ask the question with all these needs in mind.
	The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, focused on several important issues. The point has been raised as to whether the Government are correct to deal so exclusively with governments, often ignoring those NGOs with long track records of getting aid to where it is needed. To lose their expertise not only places at risk those who would benefit from it now; it also poses a risk down the line as the NGOs become less effective as they lose funds. I look forward to the Minister's reply on those points.
	The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, focused in particular on water. There is hardly a more important element. It is vital to survival. Water contamination has always been the cause of high levels of mortality. After all, it was only when sanitary reform was implemented in Britain and a clean water supply established that there was a decline in early mortality and a marked increase in life expectancy. The right reverend Prelate made the key point of how important it is to reduce debt lest poor countries are simply paying off their debt.
	I want to examine some of the issues facing the countries of East Africa and the areas where we might help whether in terms of debt relief or direct aid. I turn first to Tanzania. Half the population of Tanzania lives below the poverty line. Education indicators are worsening and health indicators are poor. Primary school enrolment fell from 98 per cent in 1981 to 75 per cent in 1996. Because of poverty, parents take their children out of school.
	The AIDS epidemic has taken its toll. It is the leading cause of death among young people. Life expectancy is 51 years and is falling. Will the Minister comment on any progress that is being made? Is there any sign of the situation being turned round? Will she comment also on measures taken by the Government to tackle corruption, to improve productive opportunities, especially for the poor, and to improve educational status?
	The Tanzanian Government's weak organisational capacity is a serious constraint on their ability to promote poverty eradication. There is also a lack of accountability and widespread corruption. Are there any hopeful signs in terms of the Tanzanian Government taking effective anti-corruption measures? Is this a country where it would be better to go through NGOs than through the government?
	The judiciary in Tanzania is inefficient and corrupt. The police are poorly managed and under-resourced. Half of Tanzania's households have inadequate access to safe water, and the burden of collecting water falls mainly on women and girls. Will the Minister comment on what is happening to improve access to safe water, to improve sanitation and promote hygiene, and to combat the diseases that cause so much infant mortality?
	I now turn to Uganda. The BBC country profile notes:
	"Since the late 1980s Uganda has rebounded from the abyss of civil war and economic catastrophe to become a model of relative peace, stability and even some prosperity".
	Democratic reforms have been introduced, the country's human rights record has improved and western backed reforms have been introduced. However, Uganda still does not have multi-party politics. Poverty levels are dropping. Here the experience of HIV/AIDS is extremely instructive. Uganda was one of the first countries to be devastated by HIV/AIDS and it was the first sub-Saharan African country to reverse its own epidemic. The government fought against the disease with a relentless campaign of education, which surely should be the model for elsewhere. There is now widespread knowledge of how the disease is spread among Ugandan people. A strong political commitment was shown. Will the Minister comment on how these lessons might be carried across into other East African countries?
	Nevertheless, the disease continues to take its toll. At the end of 2001 there were almost 1 millions AIDS orphans in Uganda. It will be many decades before the social and economic effects of AIDS are effectively reversed. I note also that access to safe water is as low as 34 per cent, which is obviously a very worrying figure.
	However, adult literacy increased from 38 per cent in 1995 to 63 per cent in 2002. Oxfam notes that,
	"things have dramatically changed in Uganda. Since the introduction of universal primary education in 1997 the number of children in primary education has more than doubled".
	But conflict and crime continue to make progress very difficult. The main rebel group is the Lord's Resistance Army, based mainly in Sudan and operating in the north of Uganda. They have been involved in a brutal campaign of atrocities, including the abduction of children who, if not massacred, are then forced to fight for the LRA. Will the Minister give some information on whether the pledges by both the Ugandan and Sudanese governments to safeguard civilians and repatriate refugees are having any real effect?
	In the context of aid to Uganda and in the light of our debate on Thursday, we should not ignore its involvement in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. There were reports yesterday that another 1,000 people were massacred in Ituri province. Although Uganda has denied any involvement, its hands have been far from clean in this respect in the past. The strongest possible signals need to go out to the Ugandan Government that the UK will not stand by and tolerate their involvement in the crimes in the DRC.
	In Kenya, at the moment the picture looks particularly promising. For the first time since independence in 1963, Kenya has chosen a new president. That was at the end of December 2002 when the opposition won a convincing majority. The elections, applauded as the cleanest and most peaceful in Kenya's history, were followed by a smooth and unprecedented transfer of power.
	The programme that the Kenyan Government promised, and then sought to implement, of universal primary education surely needs very strong support. I note that we are co-funding a scheme to provide text books and materials for all Kenyan primary schools. But teachers will also be required. Is the Minister able to comment on how the introduction of universal primary education is going in Kenya?
	Healthcare in Kenya is very worrying. Kenya, again, suffers from a high and growing rate of HIV/AIDS as well as high child and maternal mortality. The health infrastructure is deteriorating. About 15 per cent of the population suffers from AIDS and, again, there are almost 1 million AIDS orphans. Many people there have all sorts of misconceptions about the disease, including the assumption that a person who seems well cannot pass it on. I note that DfID is supporting a project to improve access to quality reproductive health services, including family planning. I should like to know how that has progressed.
	Kenya has been making very welcome moves to clean up its government. Thus, on 25th February it announced a special commission into the theft of £400 million of public funds in the country's biggest-ever corruption scandal. Other landmarks include the resignation of Kenya's most senior judge, following his suspension pending investigation on charges of corruption, intimidation and instituting torture. There is investigation, too, into land grabbing.
	But Kenya has made it plain that it will need new aid if it is to deliver all that it and the international community want. Many of its people are truly living on the edge. UNHCR reckons that currently up to half a million Kenyans are facing severe food shortages and require urgent intervention in the north-west of the country.
	The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, said that there are themes common to the concerns in all these countries. The provision of clean water is absolutely basic. Without that there will be no progress in increasing life expectancy. But we also need to see a reduction in corruption, the improvement in democratic government and the strengthening of local economies. For real progress to take place, major improvements in education and healthcare will be needed.
	As has been said, this Government have done a great deal to assist the East African countries. I welcome that. I welcome the progress that the countries themselves have made. I trust that the present conflict in the Middle East does nothing to deflect from the needs of Africa.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Freeman for initiating so eloquently this special debate on aid to East Africa and add my respect for the Minister for all the work that she does.
	Perhaps I may begin by turning to the situation in Ethiopia. In December, the UN launched a joint appeal with the Ethiopian Government to call for humanitarian assistance in 2003. This was in response to reports that the recent rains had ended and that there was a growing need for food.
	According to recent figures provided by DfID, 5.9 million people in Ethiopia were in need of food provided under the UN's World Food Programme in January 2002. By December of that year, the figure had doubled with 11.3 million people being identified and a further 3 million people at risk. This rapid increase is an example of how quickly widespread drought can impact on a highly vulnerable population.
	My noble friend Lord Freeman, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, all referred to the important role that the British Government have played in providing humanitarian support. In Ethiopia alone, £17.3 million has been provided bilaterally for humanitarian assistance during 2002 and an additional £15 million has been pledged for the early part of 2003.
	We on this side of the House hope that the contribution that Britain is making to support the humanitarian crisis in East Africa will encourage others to act. However, my noble friend Lord Freeman is correct to focus the attention of the House on the efficient deployment of any aid that we provide. Therefore it is vital that with any humanitarian crisis, the situation is constantly monitored as it unfolds so that any assistance given is not only timely but is also the most appropriate to the country's needs.
	What systems have the Government put in place to ensure that food is distributed efficiently in order to reach those most in need at the time they need it? I hope that the Government will continue to keep the humanitarian situation in Ethiopia under review and involve international and non-governmental organisations in this monitoring. In the case of Ethiopia, what measures have the Government taken to maintain in-country dialogue on the humanitarian situation between the Ethiopian Government, other donors and non-governmental organisations?
	As I have outlined, the provision of food is vital to the short-term relief of the humanitarian crisis in the region. However, while it is important that we respond to the short-term humanitarian crisis, it is important, too, that we examine opportunities to provide longer-term solutions to the situation without forgetting to find ways of reducing the risk of future humanitarian disasters.
	It is with regard to that that I turn to the situation in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, where the need for humanitarian assistance also exists. At this stage it would be remiss of me if I did not mention one of the finest organisations in this field. My noble friend Lord Freeman mentioned the importance of aid efficiency in East Africa. The Aga Khan Development Network, known as the AKDN, is one of the major contributors and does the most outstanding work in that area.
	The AKDN comprises private development agencies to improve living conditions and opportunities in East Africa and other specific regions of the developing world. It has individual mandates that range from health, education, and the built environment to rural development, infrastructure and the promotion of private sector enterprise. It works in close partnership with governments, DfID, NGOs, private sector institutions, communities and individuals, maintaining always the strictest neutrality and remaining independent of all political allegiances. Its education services provide schooling of quality to over 10,000 students in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, from the pre-primary through to the secondary level. The Aga Khan University Institute for Educational Development is supporting those efforts. The Aga Khan University has also established campuses in those three countries.
	Kenya has extremely high levels of poverty with over half of the population living below the poverty line. The situation is worsened by the spread of HIV/AIDS, as we have heard, which continues to pose a major threat to the development of the country. However, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, we can take some comfort from recent political developments with their election results providing an important opportunity to achieve reform in Kenya.
	With regard to aid accompanied by reform and education, I ask your Lordships' indulgence as I mention education yet again and especially the importance of education for women. I feel that the lack of education is one of the major roots of nearly all these problems. Education offers one of the best hopes for lifting many in the region out of poverty. We on this side of the House back the Government in their support of the new Kenyan administration to drive forward policies on poverty reduction, including their commitment to provide free primary education and to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS.
	We also recognise, however, that humanitarian assistance and good governance alone may not be sufficient to tackle some of the deeper-rooted causes of poverty in the region. The heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, has been described by the inspired president of the World Bank, Mr James Wolfensohn. He said:
	"This is a breakthrough . . . It deals with debt in a comprehensive way to give countries the possibility of existing from unsustainable debt. It is very good news for the poor of the world".
	HIPC is aimed at bringing about a reduction in the debts of some of the poorest countries. Noble Lords on all sides have recognised the damaging effects of unsustainable debt on efforts to reduce poverty in these countries and therefore the importance of providing access to the HIPC scheme for heavily indebted countries.
	In January, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, stated that many countries that have been through the scheme are still in a position of unsustainable debt. I ask the Minister whether it is still the case that 15 countries have not even reached their decision point. In other words, a third of heavily indebted poor countries have received no debt relief under the initiative. I further ask whether the Minister agrees that there must be a radical revision of the terms of the initiative, so that more countries can qualify for debt relief in 2003.
	Finally, I turn to the political situation in the region as a whole. Corruption has long played a role in diverting resources away from those most in need of aid. In the past we have often heard reports of large quantities of donated food being siphoned off by corrupt administrations and either stockpiled or sold off. I ask the Minister what measures we have in place to ensure that any aid that we send to the region reaches those for whom it was intended? Equally, so much of the humanitarian crisis in East Africa over the past decade has been exacerbated by conflict in the region which has considerably reduced access to water, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Freeman, the ability to grow crops and increased competition for already scarce resources.
	In 1984 a state of civil war existed in Ethiopia that significantly impeded the ability of the international community to direct available resources to relief. I hope therefore that noble Lords will support the view that the best way to tackle famine across Africa is by the international community looking forward and working with African countries to end the cycle of corruption, economic stagnation, war and all the problems with water that condemn so many Africans to poverty and famine.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for opening this important debate and I pay tribute to the noble Lord's work with the Busoga Trust. I thank him for his positive comments about the work of DfID in East Africa. I also thank the noble Lord and the right reverend Prelate for their kind comments about my work.
	This debate has underlined the enormous challenges faced by the 90 million people in the three countries of East Africa: Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. I shall also talk about Ethiopia, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. They are all desperately poor countries. In Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda we have an average per capita income of between 270 and 350 dollars a year. The challenge in each is to achieve sustained economic growth and to deliver the benefits of that to the poor, reducing the numbers living in abject poverty and providing basic education, good healthcare and decent livelihoods for all.
	Debt relief and increased donor support provided by the international community have had a significant effect. All noble Lords mentioned the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. The Government continue to play a leading role in delivering debt relief for the world's poorest countries. So far 26 of the 37 eligible countries have qualified for debt relief under HIPC, the aim of which is to ensure that debt is cut to sustainable levels in the world's poorest countries. Six of those countries have reached completion point and received full debt relief. The remaining 20—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, said there were 15—are receiving interim relief ahead of a debt write-off expected in the coming few years.
	The United Kingdom continues to push for increased debt relief, where necessary, through so-called topping-up at completion point because we are concerned at countries coming out of HIPC with unsustainable levels of debt. Topping-up is provided on the basis of individual assessment of the country's need. We continue to be vigilant in ensuring that the international financial system offers the right blend of debt relief and concessional loans or grants for countries that have shown commitment to sound economic policies and poverty reduction strategies. I can assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth that we will remain committed to the debt relief agenda and to long-term sustainable development in Africa.
	The right reverend Prelate mentioned the debt relief situation in Ethiopia. We are working very hard with the World Bank and the IMF to address problems of Ethiopian debt, as the problems are due to shock beyond Ethiopia's control. That has happened in a number of countries, where they are unable to assess how much they will get in terms of commodity prices. We are very conscious of the debt sustainability problem in Ethiopia.
	The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, talked in particular about water, as did other noble Lords. We are committed to the millennium development goals, one of which is to halve the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015. Another seeks to halve the proportion of people without access to safe water by 2015. We have worked very hard to win international agreement to the sanitation target at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg last year.
	It is true that it will be very difficult to attain all the goals related to water and sanitation, particularly in Africa and particularly the target on the supply of safe drinking water. There is no internationally agreed target on sanitation. That, of course, is regrettable, but we pushed very hard for it, because the challenges in sanitation are even greater than for water. We are working to build an effective response, through the international system, to support developing countries in achieving the MDGs. Our goal in the water sector is to enable poor people to lead healthier and more productive lives by helping to increase and to sustain their access to safe drinking water and appropriate sanitation.
	We currently support a number of multilateral initiatives, including the Global Water Partnership, the World Bank Water and Sanitation Programme and the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council. We also support bilateral programmes in many countries in the developing world, including Uganda, Nigeria and South Africa, but also countries in Asia. The recent 3rd World Water Forum in Kyoto has been useful in maintaining momentum towards implementation of the Johannesburg commitment. There has been a strong reaffirmation by all countries of the commitment to water for poverty reduction.
	On the specifics of water supply in Uganda, rural water coverage increased from 40 per cent in 1990 to 46 per cent in 2000. The figures for global water coverage in the same period were 44 per cent to 50 per cent. In Tanzania total water coverage was 48 per cent in 1990 and 54 per cent in 2000. We look at water policies in Tanzania in the context of our overall support for the poverty reduction strategy process. Water is regarded as one of the fundamental areas for improvement there. We discuss that regularly with the Government in an attempt to influence policies and to bring about improvements.
	The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, asked about value for money in Uganda. Our policy thrust is to improve accountability for all public expenditure. We are encouraging a strong role for the directorate of water development in Uganda. A big thrust is to improve auditing and to measure performance. We are confident that improvements are beginning to be demonstrated that will flow to all in terms of water management.
	The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Rawlings, mentioned corruption. Corruption is a severe problem and a constraint on development in most developing countries. Experience demonstrates that corruption thrives whenever there are weak systems and that much past corruption has originated from bribes offered by companies from OECD countries.
	We are collaborating with governments and other donors in the region to strengthen systems, particularly in the public sector, in order to reduce opportunities and incentives for corruption and to increase effective sanctions. In Uganda, for example, a joint Foreign Office/DfID anti-corruption strategy has been agreed with the Government there, and it forms the basis of a common reform agenda. We are supporting the reform of central procurement and public expenditure management procedures. There are also financial tracking and value for money studies to monitor implementation and expenditure at district level. The move to budget support has, by reducing project management responsibilities, enabled DfID to become more engaged in the wider issues that form the root of inefficiency in expenditure.
	I must turn to the countries that were mentioned. In 1998 and 2000, Uganda was the first country to benefit from the heavily indebted poor country initiative. The result has been annual savings of about 90 million dollars on repayments. All debt relief is directed towards poverty-related programmes in the Government's poverty eradication action plan. Those programmes have doubled, as a share of total discretionary government expenditure since 1997, rising from 18 per cent to 36 per cent. As was mentioned, Uganda is also a major recipient of aid. We provided approximately £55 million in untied grants in 2003, mainly in the form of direct budget support to the Government.
	The trend of reform so far is positive, and the results are clear. Uganda has maintained a high rate of growth—6.3 per cent in 2001–02—against a background of falling commodity prices. The proportion of the population living in poverty has fallen dramatically, from 56 per cent in 1992 to 35 per cent in 2000. Social indicators have improved, with primary school enrolment almost trebling between 1996 and 2000, and the incidence of HIV/AIDS has fallen from 20 per cent in 1992 to 6.1 per cent in 2001.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked how we could carry the lessons of Uganda into our work in other countries. What we have learnt from Uganda has informed our strategy in other countries, and we continue to examine success stories in other countries that we can build on. There has been an increase in health funding at district level, leading to an expansion in out-patient attendance, which is up 40 per cent between July 2001 and June 2002, and immunisation coverage, which is up from 48 per cent to 63 per cent by June 2002.
	Those figures demonstrate development gains from which we should all take encouragement. At the same time, Uganda faces significant challenges over the next few years. Conflict and insecurity in the north, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, continue to hamper poverty reduction. Tensions in the region have risen in recent months. Defence expenditure has exceeded the limits agreed with donors, and that is one of the reasons why our assistance to Uganda last year was less than had been planned. Looking ahead, major political reforms will be needed to introduce a multi-party system, before the 2006 presidential and parliamentary elections. Tackling those challenges will be key to maintaining Uganda's impressive record of development success.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, mentioned Tanzania, the poorest of the east African countries. It has received debt relief and increased donor support, based on the Government's strong commitment to poverty reduction. Last financial year, the United Kingdom provided approximately £65 million in untied grants, mainly in the form of direct budget support, through a joint funding mechanism with 10 other donors.
	Given that this is just the third year of the strategy, it is too early to identify the extent to which moving our resources into budget support in Tanzania has helped. However, we are beginning to see some results. There has been an increase in economic growth; the net primary school enrolment ratio has risen from 59 per cent in 1990 to 85 per cent in 2002; and there is also evidence that maternal mortality is reducing significantly. The supply of safe drinking water has improved in rural and urban areas. The Tanzanian Government face major challenges, including building their capacity, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and that of local authorities to deliver the poverty reduction strategy. It is important that they do not to slip back into debt.
	The position in Kenya has, until recently, been different. Kenya has had the advantage of lower levels of debt and has not needed debt relief, but, for many years, it has been a difficult environment in which to work effectively. The failure of the previous government to implement promised reforms gave the international financial institutions and ourselves no choice but to suspend budget support. We had, however, a £30 million programme, focused on four areas: a multi-donor civic education programme; work to improve the management of public services; fighting HIV/AIDS; and a private sector programme helping to reduce the burden of red tape, which also helped to tackle corruption.
	As soon as the new government took office, they announced the implementation of universal and free primary education. More than 1 million children have either returned to school or gone to school for the first time. Two weeks ago DfID provided an extra £10 million for textbooks and essential materials.
	I turn to Ethiopia. The humanitarian situation mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, is serious, with 11.3 million people identified as needing food aid, and a further three million requiring close monitoring. We have made a substantial response so far—£37.6 million since the beginning of 2002—and we have been urging others to contribute to the appeal. We attach the highest priority to constant monitoring of the situation, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. The Ethiopian Government have improved their own monitoring since the famine of 1984-85. That is why we have prevented a shortage turning into a crisis and we have had regular meetings with NGOs and others in Addis Ababa to discuss the humanitarian situation.
	With respect to aid effectiveness, there is convincing evidence that the gains realised through partnership, fostered through the provision of general budget support, lead to development that reaches a far larger scale, and is more sustainable, than individual projects with their associated large transaction costs. I assure the House that having moved to budgetary support, it does not mean that we will not continue to work with NGOs on our longer-term development agenda. We are asking tough questions about NGO funding, but that is because we want to ensure the best means of achieving poverty reduction.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked me about the massacre in Ituri. This is absolutely appalling, especially given the signing last week of the peace process in Sun City about the DRC. I have issued a statement on this today, and the noble Baroness will be aware that my right honourable friend Clare Short has maintained a dialogue between the presidents of Uganda and Rwanda with respect to the tensions between their two countries in the DRC.
	I have gone well over my time. I conclude by saying that tonight's debate has underlined that the challenges facing us are huge. Our continued support, and that of the international community, is vital to the millions of people in the region. We are committed to delivering this support, but leadership can be taken only by the governments of the region. That is now happening, and the combination of their commitment and our support is starting to deliver results. Those results show that debt relief and increased donor support are not wasted efforts. They can make a real difference to turning around the lives of poor people, and to giving them the prospects of a better future.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for two minutes.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.23 to 8.25 p.m.]

Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Lord Elton: My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 13, I should draw the attention of the House to a small mistake. The amendment should read:
	"Page 2, line 20, after 'second region' insert"
	the words printed on the Marshalled List.

Clause 2 [Referendum question]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 2, line 20, after "region" insert "with the reorganisation of local government into a single tier in those areas which currently have county and district councils"

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. The importance of these amendments is to make it clear in the question on the ballot paper at the referendum that a vote for a regional assembly means single-tier local authorities.
	Throughout the debate, we have believed that it is not enough simply to have an explanatory note. One is voting either for or against a regional assembly. However, when voting for a regional assembly, one is accepting that one is also voting for single-tier local government. It makes it more of an issue if the person casting the vote knows what he is voting for, rather than having an explanatory note—we know not everyone reads the small print—which states, "By the way, when you are voting 'Yes' for the question on the ballot paper, you are voting for a single-tier assembly".
	We know from Divisions earlier today that there is likely to be a second question. It will therefore be interesting to debate how explicit that second question is. Those voting in areas where there are two tiers will be given two votes; the first for or against the assembly and the second as to which way they want to "die", as I said earlier. I accept that those in single-tier authorities, where the unitary authorities presently exist, should not be given an undue influence over rural areas. However, that fear is not removed because they will still have the overwhelming might to express their view and preference for or against a regional assembly. When the votes for a regional assembly in a unitary authority are coupled with the votes for an assembly in the rural areas—even if that vote for an assembly is a minority vote in the rural areas—the urban areas will still win out. That concerns us. I beg to move.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I understand the reasoning behind the noble Baroness's amendment. I believe that she is right; the words in question should be located where she suggests rather than as proposed in the Bill. However, the wording is not as clear to the average voter as it might be. I cannot think offhand how it can be made clear, except that there would be a marginal improvement if "both" were to be inserted before "county" in the second line.
	It is important that those who have a vote should understand exactly what is entailed. My suggestion could always be incorporated at Third Reading and if the noble Baroness were to press the amendment, I would support it. However, she might care to reflect on that.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Blatch for speaking to the amendment on my behalf. We have discussed at length the form of the question. As my noble friend said, this matter needs to be rationalised into one question so that people understand completely what it is that they are being asked to vote for. They will be asked not only to vote for regional government or whether they want a regional assembly; they will be asked whether they want a regional assembly and the reorganisation of local government.
	We tabled a different amendment on the last occasion in which we included the word "should", but the point remains the same; namely, that people should be very clear about what it is they are voting for. Therefore we believe that this amendment makes the matter much more rational.
	I shall take up the points that have just been made. Perhaps we could consider those as well.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we are not trying to hide the policy of introducing elected regional assemblies and single-tier local government. While I acknowledge the fears expressed by both noble Baronesses that people will not understand what is happening, given the debate and the information to be made available I am absolutely certain that they will.
	The position has changed since these amendments were tabled. We have accepted Amendment No. 12 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which means that there will be a second, separate question. So voters in a two-tier authority area will be well aware of the implications of voting for an elected assembly when they come to vote in a regional referendum. Furthermore, the Government have tabled Amendment No. 16, which we shall discuss in a later grouping. That amendment amends the preamble to the first question so that all voters will know that those in two-tier areas are being asked a separate question about their preferred option for a single tier of government in their area.
	The preamble to the referendum question also alerts voters to the fact that, should an assembly be established, local government would be reorganised into a single tier in those areas that currently have both a county and a district council. I believe, therefore, that the amendment is unnecessary.
	For the sake of completeness of the record I shall finish the point with regard to Amendment No. 15. The amendment would delete the second bullet point of the preamble to the referendum question, which informs the voter about the reorganisation of local government into a single tier in those areas that currently have both a county council and a district council, should an assembly be established.
	As I have said, we have already accepted an amendment which means that now there will be a second question on local government reorganisation. I have repeated many times that we are firm on the proposal that one tier of local government will be removed. That is an integral part of the package. No attempt is being made to hide the policy. I do not know how many times we shall have to make it clear on the ballot paper that there is to be only one tier of local government. Now that the second question has been agreed, it will be made abundantly clear to all concerned.
	The amendments are not necessary because they would simply repeat what will be set out in the first place.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I should like to mention a point that has not been raised so far during the debate. Most of the people I know who live in two-tier areas will not want a unitary authority; they will want to keep two tiers. They will not want to choose from any of the three options and so they will vote "No" to them all. We could organise—indeed, I think we will do so—a write-in demanding to keep the status quo. What would happen if a write-in on ballot papers declaring the wish to retain the status quo exceeds the votes cast for any of the options? I do not think that people in two-tier areas such as Northumberland, Cheshire and Lancashire will vote for any of the options for unitary authorities. As we heard earlier, voters in those areas will want to retain the status quo. What will be the Government's view on such a result?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is a very hypothetical question to which I do not have the answer. To be frank, I just do not think that the electorate would operate in that way. If people do not want any of the proposed changes to the structure of local government, which would be directly connected to the choice as to whether they want a regional assembly—that is the most important point and will be uppermost in their minds—they will vote "No" to the referendum question.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, one issue arising from the second, preferential question, is that people may want to say no to that; they may not want a preference; they may say no to both preferences, or however many preferences there are; but say yes to a regional assembly. Will the regional assembly question be considered totally and utterly separately from the other questions? The idea that everyone will know that to vote yes to the assembly and no to the options will get them a regional assembly with their non-option—the option that they do not choose—is wrong.
	Does the Minister really believe that voters in an area where there is a two-tier authority will know that those in an area with a single-tier authority will have a different ballot paper? That is just not the case. In the closest town to where I live in Cambridgeshire, there is sometimes an election for town councillors when the other parts of the district do not have one. People are completely unaware of that. They do not know about other people's ballot papers; they are simply given information about their ballot paper—pamphlets through the door and information from the political parties about what they are expected to do at their polling station. They will be unaware of the other complexities of the proposed vote.
	Now that the Liberal Democrats have supported the Government in saying that there will be a referendum and reorganisation of local government allied to it, it is important for the Minister either now or at Third Reading to make clear what will happen if people vote differently: either for a regional assembly but no to those preferences or, as my noble friend suggested, for a regional assembly but writing on the ballot paper that they do not want their local government to be reorganised but prefer the status quo. Will that be a spoiled ballot paper?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I realise that Members of the House do not get a vote in general elections, but they get a vote elsewhere. So the noble Baroness will be familiar with a ballot paper. Generally speaking, words written on a ballot paper mean that the ballot paper is not even counted.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, they sometimes are. I gave an example of that—it occurred in Reading, I believe—during earlier consideration of the Bill. The members of the political parties get together with the returning officer. If they come to the view that they know what the person filling in the ballot paper meant and that is agreed between the parties, the vote is accepted. In the case of my example, that ended up in court, the courts found against the result of the ballot and it had to be rerun. So I am sorry, but sometimes when ballot papers have strange markings on them they can be considered by the parties involved.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, that involved a ballot between people. I have been a counting agent as well as a Member of Parliament, so I know exactly what the process is. The returning officer will have a chart. One always thinks that one has covered every eventuality of what people could do to a ballot paper. There is a list, but someone always thinks of something new to do. People writing in—effectively discounting their vote, although I am not giving a legal view—are effectively abstaining on the second question. They will know the consequences of that, because it will be made abundantly clear to them that there is a choice of whether to use the second question: if people do not want to use it, that is their choice.

Baroness Blatch: Then, my Lords, I come to my last question. If they vote yes to a regional assembly but no to each of the preferences on the ballot paper, is that considered to be a vote for or against the regional assembly?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, for the individual concerned, there is one answer, but the total number of votes cast—the "Yes" votes and "No" votes to the first and second question—will determine the answer. There will be a majority. There is hardly likely to be a dead heat. I am not saying that that it is impossible; but I certainly hope that it does not happen—especially now, having said that. The majority view will prevail. We have made that clear.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was not my question. My question is this: if they vote for a regional assembly but against each of the options, that is a non-choice. They cannot have a regional assembly with no reorganisation of local government, but that is how they could democratically vote, having been given two separate questions. If they vote for a regional assembly but against all the options for reorganising local government, how will their vote be counted?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry, I misunderstood the noble Baroness's question. She is talking about the total result of all the votes counted.

Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords, I mean the votes of an individual.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have already answered that question.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered that question. Is it a spoiled vote or is it a vote for a regional assembly with no change to local government, because that is what the vote means?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, if people cast a yes vote for the first question in the referendum, it makes you wonder why they would vote no for all the options on the second question, voting for a regional assembly while knowing the consequences are for single-tier authorities. There are two separate referendums, so there are two votes. There is not a vote against the local government options. In other words, there is a vote for or against having a regional assembly. If the options are all dismissed, that would count as a no by an individual. There may be people, by the way, who vote yes for more than one local government option. What is the answer to that?

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is the Minister's job, not mine. I have just been corrected by my noble friend Lady Hanham. As I understand it, there will be two separate referendums.

Baroness Maddock: Yes, there will be two referendums.

Baroness Blatch: Thank you very much.
	That is a very clever way of saying to the people, "You have a choice between the Government's terms and the Liberal Democrats' terms, but you have no choice about whether you would or would not like to have a regional assembly, with or without a reorganisation of local government".
	I now understand that there will be two separate referendums so votes will be counted separately on the assembly question and the other one. The more I think about it, the more of a confidence trick it is. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will defend that in the regions. My goodness, the people there really need to know how the Liberal Democrats are preventing local people having a real choice of a regional assembly, with or without a wholesale change of their local government.
	The Minister expects a great deal of the people. How does he think that doing it this way will make it easier or better for voters in an area? I noted his comments about my Amendment No. 15, and I will look at it again. I shall certainly take on board the point of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and will consider coming back on Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Page 2, line 28, insert—
	" any regional assembly established will have no new powers and no new money, except for that which they raise by a precept from council tax payers in the region."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the amendment seeks to put a new second bullet point in the preamble. It is straightforward, because it reflects the assurances which we have received time and time again from the Minister in Committee and previously at Second Reading. We have spent much time talking about the provision of information for voters and the need to make them fully aware of the functions and powers of regional assemblies and about the local government reorganisation which is part and parcel of the same package. This cannot all be left to the preamble, nor can it simply be posted in the polling station. We have heard about the information leaflets to be put through letter boxes to boost awareness in the campaigning weeks before a referendum. We support that as an essential element of the procedure of informing voters.
	Amendment No. 14, however, is crucial for a number of reasons. It would state on the face on the Bill, in very few words, the text which must be inserted as a second point in the preamble and which reflects the fundamentals of the regional assemblies under consideration.
	Leaflets through letterboxes more often than not get ignored. A draft Bill, which we discussed, if published before a referendum, although accessible to voters, may not be studied or noticed by them. We would like the preamble to state expressly that, as the Minister has told us many times, no new powers and no new money will be associated with regional assemblies. We did not know that for certain until we were assured of it a few weeks ago. Many of us were under the misapprehension that the assemblies might have new powers, although the misapprehensions were not very strong, because we kept on coming up against the same point that there would be no new powers. Voters may well think that they should vote "Yes" in a referendum, because it will mean that more funds will be diverted to their region.
	I hesitate to mention the North East again, but there certainly is or has been a presumption there that the Barnett formula will be changed in the north of England's favour. It is very clear now that that is not what is being proposed. It would seem sensible, to say the least, if a referendum took place at any stage in that region, that people clearly understood—because it was laid out before them—that that was not an option. It is of the utmost importance that the reality should be made plain to every voter and set out clearly in the preamble.
	Any additional funding will be possible only through precepting powers. Council tax payers would therefore bear the brunt, and they should know that before they vote "Yes" rather than hearing about it when they have made their choice. It might be helpful if the Bill pointed out that, where there are precepting powers, the 5p to which the Minister referred is not there for evermore. Voters in London were beguiled into believing that there was going to be a precept of 3p in the pound per week. They have been sadly disabused of that.
	People believe that there is extra funding, and they should have it made clear that there is none. If it is not made clear, it may lead to resentment that they did not know what the facts were before they ticked the box. If people do not know the reality of what they are voting for, the validity of a vote in favour of a referendum is questionable. I beg to move.

Lord Monson: My Lords, although the amendment is excellent in principle and perhaps vital, I am again worried about the clarity and ambiguity of the wording for the voter. Nearly all of us understand the meaning of the word "precept", but it is realistic rather than patronising to suggest that barely half the electorate understand it. Would it not be an improvement and help the voter if the words "a precept" were deleted and "additional council tax" put in instead?

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am with the Conservatives with regard to clarity for the voter, but I am troubled by the precise wording of the amendment as a whole, not only the term "precept". I entirely agree with the noble Lord, but I would not have put the proportion who understand that term as high as half of council tax payers.
	The phrase "no new powers" became a mantra at the last stage, but it was shorthand. The regional assemblies do not exist, other than as voluntary chambers associated with regional development agencies. There are no elected assemblies, so there is no such body that could have any powers.
	Let us leave aside our arguments about how extensive the powers of the assemblies should be and simply consider what is said in the first bullet point, which relates to being,
	"responsible for a range of activities".
	There will have to be powers to carry out those activities, or even to respond to central government's points about those activities. It would be extremely difficult to extend the powers of regional assemblies at a later stage, as we would like to see happen, if a referendum were undertaken on the basis that that could not happen, but one would have to read that into the proposals. I am concerned about precluding the possibility of tax raising or tax varying. I recognise that that issue may be even further in the distance, but I certainly would not like to rule it out.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the more we hear about the Lib/Lab version of what the Bill is about—we have not heard much which lifts the lid on a proper understanding of the Bill—the more it becomes a Trojan horse. If the Bill is passed in such a way that additional powers can be added, it really will become a Trojan horse.
	The noble Baroness said that an assembly will be a completely new body and will need powers in order to carry out its functions. I have read and re-read the White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice. An assembly will have powers to talk about matters—it may become an advisory body, an arm of government, a talking shop—but if it is to have real authority it will need powers to take action and to decide and determine matters. I have asked the Minister but, as open and as honest as he is, he has not yet given an example of a free-standing power to determine matters.
	These powers cannot come from local government—we are told that no powers will be removed from local government—and we have not been told of a single real power which will be delegated down from national government. The assemblies may have "an influence on" or "a part to play in", but the words used in the document do not smack of powers. It would be helpful, if nothing else, if the amendment elicits from the Government and their bed partners, the Liberal Democrats, what is envisaged for the assemblies.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the amendment is defective in one or two ways. First, it states that,
	"any regional assembly established will have no new powers".
	However, if the Government believe in regional government, they should be giving many more powers to the regions. Those powers should not come from local government—I have made that clear on a number of occasions—but they could come from the quangos. It is disgraceful that in this country £50 billion of public money is being administered by people who are virtually unaccountable to the public at large and to people who pay their taxes.
	If we are to have realistic regional government, which I do not believe in anyway, the powers of some of these quangos should be transferred down—preferably to local government but, if we are going to have regional government, to regional government.
	The other issue that concerns me is that the amendment contains the words,
	"except for that which they raise by a precept from council tax payers in the region".
	I do not believe that they should have precepting powers. Time and time again I have said that precepting is the most irresponsible way of raising money. It raises money from council tax payers without being accountable to them. That cannot be right. When the precept comes in, the people who will take the blame will not be the elected members of the assembly but the elected members of the local council. That cannot be right.
	In my area, Berkshire and Reading, the Thames Valley Police Authority was set up under the Police Act 1964, much against my will. I wish that we could have the watch committees back again. The measure was supposed to improve policing throughout the whole of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. However, we now have policemen in Reading having to ask the general public the way to wherever they are going.
	The reason I mention the Thames Valley Police Authority is that it has just increased its precept by 41 per cent. The people who will carry the can are the local authorities. That cannot be right. Therefore, I believe that if these regional authorities are to be realistic, and if the Government are serious about them, they have to have their own money raising powers. They must be responsible to the electorate for spending that money. Any other way, frankly, just lets them off the hook, and that is not good enough.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I would not have spoken had it not been for the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. She seemed to say that she objected to the amendment as it would prevent the Government giving new powers to the regional assemblies. That is precisely what worries us. That is the justification for an amendment such as the one we are discussing. Are we really going to ask people to vote for regional assemblies when, at the drop of a hat, the Government could decide to delegate to them powers which at present are in the hands of local authorities? I certainly do not want to see that. If any justification for this amendment were needed, it is given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who showed that she had in her mind the idea that in due course there should be given to the regional assemblies powers which at present are in the hands of local authorities. That is a horrible prospect.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I know that we are on Report, although not many of us have acknowledged that, but I must make it perfectly clear—I hope that I made it clear at an earlier stage—that we on these Benches do not envisage, and would not support, regional assemblies taking powers up from local government. We have said throughout that they should take powers down from central government and exercise powers which, as the noble Lord has just said, are in the hands of quangos at the moment.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, the noble Baroness therefore agrees that she is unhappy with the amendment because new powers could be given to the regional assemblies which are not envisaged at the present time by the Minister. Is that right or is that wrong?

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I hope that that is right, frankly, because this is the most defective clause of the Bill so far. We certainly hope that any regional assembly that is established will have new powers. That is why we want to set them up. Otherwise, what is the point of setting them up? I cannot think of a more negative matter to be put on a referendum sheet for people to vote on than this blinking clause. Of course regional assemblies should have powers; that is why we want them.
	As regards the regional assemblies having no new money, I know the Minister has said that no new money will be available but there is such a thing as economic growth. We hope that in 10, 20 or 30 years' time economic growth might have produced a few more bob. There may well be some way—or it may be important that there is a way—in which some of that economic growth can be used by that tier of government, if that is appropriate. Obviously, that should not be done if it is not appropriate.
	I have reservations about precepting council tax payers as that muddies the distinction between local government and regional government. I would hope that the regional resource comprised money from a different source than the council tax payer. But if there is no other possibility, perhaps it is right that a regional authority—I shall give way to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in a minute—should be able to precept as that would enable it to say that a matter was so important that it must have the resources to deal with it when that resource has not been granted by central government.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord is voting with the Government on many of the main parts of the Bill, including the power to precept. It is not good enough for the Liberal Democrats to say that they do not actually like the idea of precepting on local taxpayers, as in fact they are giving the Government succour in voting for exactly that.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, there is all the reason in the world to have provision to do something. Whether one uses it is another matter based on whether there is subsequent cause. As I understand it, the Scottish Parliament has precepting powers on the taxpayers of Scotland. In its four years so far, it has decided not to use them. It has decided in its wisdom that it has the resources under the Barnett formula and everything else to cope with the governance of Scotland, and has chosen not to put extra money on taxation in Scotland.
	I hope that the same will be the case so far as regional government is concerned. Even if it is not, I can see the point of having a backstop. If people want to raise money for their region that they think will be so valuable there, they ought to be able to say, "We have the power to do this. If we can't get something from central government, we shall have to use the backstop power".

Lord Rooker: My Lords, two or three weeks ago, open negotiations were going on in this Chamber between the two opposition parties. Quite clearly, that little love-in has come to an end.
	I honestly have more faith in the electorate and what they know than some speakers tonight. It is true that not everyone takes an interest every day in the minutiae of tax and government. Perhaps after Wednesday they might take a bit more interest for a few days. That is not a leak—I do not know anything. People are interested in what they are interested in. When someone says, "Oh, it's too complicated. The people"—meaning those who are not as clever as us—Xdon't understand", I say, "Hang on—I can't fill in a football pools coupon or read a knitting pattern". There are millions out there who can, because they want to—because they are interested.
	These days, thanks partly to the efforts of the Conservative government as a consequence of bringing in the poll tax, councils are forced to explain in a much more clear and identifiable way how the money is raised and where it is spent than they ever were in the past. Frankly, they get better at it every year in terms of what they send to the electorate. Most of it might not be read, but it is made available to the public—to the taxpayers. If they are interested, they will read it.
	Most of the ignorance that I have found about such matters is from some of the clever-clog journalists in this place. I remember someone—I shall not name him, because that would be unfair—who wrote a long piece during the poll tax row about the fact that council tenants did not pay rates, and so did not understand it. That is a classic example of gross ignorance. Someone simply made an assumption that was, of course, utterly wrong. He thought that he knew better, and that those outside this place did not understand what was going on.
	It is very nice to see an attempt to place my words in the Marshalled List. The last time I had an amendment stuck in a piece of legislation was 1977, and I am not looking to replay that. I am very flattered, because the point—no new powers, no new money—is finally being conceded in principle.
	I freely admit that I have deliberately sought not to overplay the role of the regional assemblies. No one can accuse me of overplaying that. On the other hand, it would be quite unfair if it were thought that I were downplaying their role. It is not as though they will not have any powers. They will take powers from central government, its agencies and quangos, and will have responsibilities in some key areas, such as housing, jobs, planning and transport. Elected assemblies will bring decision-making under closer democratic control and offer the regions a distinct political voice. That is a very important aspect of the package.
	It is true that, compared with regions without elected assemblies, assemblies will not receive any additional money other than what we have outlined—that is, small help with the initial set-up and running costs and in relation to the precepting power. However, they will be responsible for significant budgets and have influence over the expenditure of a range of public bodies in the region. Additionally, the elected assembly will have flexibility in how to spend that money—enabling it to change priorities, to address the priorities that it thinks are greater and to bring democratic control over the allocation of that money. So while it is true that there will be "no new money, no new powers", it is untrue that there will be "no money, no powers". As I said, the assemblies will not be service delivery agencies.
	The preamble which sets out the responsibilities of the assembly is more informative than Amendment No. 14. As I have repeatedly said, before any referendum, the Government will issue a statement setting out our proposals for elected regional assemblies. I am not able to give the details of the contents of that statement, but as I have repeatedly said, people will not go into the polling booth without knowing what they are voting for and, more to the point, the consequences of what they are voting for.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will oblige the Liberal Democrats by incorporating in an amendment at Third Reading a clear statement that there will be no question of the delegation of powers to regional assemblies from local authorities. As the Liberal Democrats have said that that is their policy, perhaps—if the Minister would be kind enough to table an amendment to that effect—they will for once follow their opinions with their votes.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, this is where we part company with our colleagues. As I have also made clear, we have no plans to take statutory powers from local authorities and to give them to the regional assemblies. That is the Government's policy. That is the position. We do not need to include that in the Bill because it is something that we do not intend to do. We have made it clear that we are not taking powers from local authorities and giving them to the regional assemblies. We have already had debates about that and I am happy for the opportunity to make it even more abundantly clear.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, absolutely nothing in the Bill prevents that. Those powers could come from anywhere. The Minister said, "No new powers", but the Government have been equivocal about it. They said, "We said no new powers, but of course they will have powers to do " and Y". The Liberal Democrats have said that they want new powers. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, wants to give them lots more new powers. As my noble friend Lord Waddington said, the Government seem to agree absolutely that no powers whatever will be taken from local government and given to the regional assemblies. The Liberal Democrats seem to agree with that. If that is so, point me to the part of the Bill that prevents the regional assemblies assuming local authority powers. In fact, the noble Lord has already mentioned one such power—housing.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, none of the statutory housing powers held by local authorities will go to the regional assemblies. I have already made that clear. There is no authority to do it. It is government policy that that will not happen. The point is that the assembly cannot take the powers. The assembly will not have the statutory authority to take powers from local government. As has been made quite clear in the legal definitions affecting these bodies, local authorities' statutory powers belong to local government.
	Basically those statutory powers cannot be removed from local government unless this House and another place agree to remove them. That is the point. The elected regional assemblies will have no power of their own to take powers from local government. I cannot spell it out any clearer than that. The Government have no policy to change that. Let there be no doubt about that, either in local government or in this House, between the various parties. The statutory powers of local government will remain with local government—and I hope that that note does not say the opposite.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am sorry to ask the Minister to give way again, but he must surely understand our concern about this matter. Certain powers have already been taken away from local government and given to the regions; namely, planning powers. Surely the Minister can understand how much happier we should be—the Bill contains various provisions allowing, for instance, for statements on the ballot paper as to what will happen if people vote "Yes"—if he could be a little more forthcoming and say that in some way or other the Government will state plainly that there will be no more transfer of powers from local authorities to the regions such as the Government have already carried out in the case of planning. We are surely entitled to that.

Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords, but I have answered this point at least three times. The changes in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill before another place have nothing whatever to do with elected regional assemblies. Those changes will take place if this Bill disappears tomorrow and is not brought back. It is not a consequence of this Bill. This Bill relates to regional referendums; it is not about the powers of the regional assemblies. There will be another Bill for that.
	Planning is a fair example to raise, but the context is totally wrong. The question has been raised of assemblies taking powers from local government. That cannot happen; they have no power to do so. It is not our intention that local government will lose statutory powers. It can lose statutory powers only as a result of an Act of Parliament. In a way, the planning Bill is a good example, but it is not dependent on this Bill. The planning Bill stands on its own. If this Bill completes its passage and there is a "No" vote in a regional referendum—so that there is no new main Bill—the planning Bill changes will still take place. They have nothing whatever to do with this Bill.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, that will not wash. What the Minister is really saying is that, as a result of the transference of powers through the planning Bill, if this Bill completes its passage, the regional assemblies will actually have control of planning.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the point is that it has nothing to do with elected regional assemblies. One assumes that if one or two regions hold a referendum we shall be in a position, implicit in the Bill, where some regions may have an elected regional assembly and others will be without an assembly, so there will be differences in that respect; but planning powers will go to the assembly, elected or unelected. It has nothing to do with the Bill. If this Bill were not before Parliament the powers would still be transferred.
	That is true in some respects; where there is an unelected element, in relation to some of the decisions that would normally come across Ministers' desks—many Members on the Benches opposite have been Ministers and know some of the minutiae that come before them—Ministers would still be accountable to Parliament, and rightly so. Ministers would still have to agree those decisions. But the planning Bill has nothing to do with this Bill. Under the planning Bill, the powers will change, in the modest way proposed in that Bill, whether or not there is an elected regional assembly. So it is not a fair example to use—and there is not another one.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, will the Minister give way? He makes much of the fact that there is a particular intention in the Government's mind. If he casts his mind back to our first day in Committee, he will recall an argument between myself and his noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting about the word "directly" in the phrase "directly elected regional assemblies". I quoted the Prime Minister's introduction to the White Paper to him. I could have turned the page and quoted the Deputy Prime Minister's foreword. Both referred to "directly elected regional assemblies". In responding, his noble friend Lord Evans said:
	"Things have moved on since the Prime Minister made his introduction".—[Official Report, 13/3/03; col. 1493.]
	If we cannot trust the Prime Minister's word in the introduction to the White Paper, why should we trust anything else in the White Paper as being cast in stone?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, that is a red herring. As was made clear at the time, nowhere in our law does the term "directly elected" figure. That was the answer. The argument was whether members were directly elected or additional members. It was nothing whatever to do with the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, fortunately the Minister has recognised his own Rookerism, in that his words have been quoted back to him in full; that is,
	"Any regional assembly . . . will have no new powers and no new money".
	I remember the Minister saying that very firmly and very strongly on at least four occasions in Committee. Of course, he tried to explain it, but clearly he has not explained it so well that we can put the possibility out of our minds.
	However, we cannot have it two ways. The White Paper says that there will be no new powers—we accept that that is precisely right—and no new money. I accept, as the Minister says, that regional assemblies may be able to generate money from within their budgets, but, as it stands, there is no new money. The status quo will remain. The Minister may now be wishing that the Bill had been in draft form before we started on this. It would have saved him an awful lot of time and hassle.
	However, that did not happen, so we are still picking away at what people who are going to vote are likely to ask. Before they vote they will want to know what on earth these regional assemblies are going to do and where on earth the money will come from in order to do it. To have that on the face of the Bill would be realistic. Certainly, it would be the Rookerism that I expected to see there.
	Indeed, we now have another Rookerism—that statutory powers of local government will stay with local government. Perhaps that can be put down, please, in as bold a type as we have got, that we,
	"will have no new powers and no new money",
	because that now needs not to change either. It has been very firmly stated that local government will carry on doing exactly what it is doing.
	Presumably, that is local government as reorganised. It is not local government as it is now because that would not make sense. The functions and powers of local government will have to be reorganised. We do not know how that is being done and we have not had any information on that at all—although I think that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would ensure that there was information about that as well. I think that we must hope that that is what will count.
	It is abundantly clear from listening to their aspirations that the Liberal Democrats, in particular, do not accept that there will be no new powers from anywhere. That is what the Minister said, but the Liberal Democrats do not accept that. Not only have they caused us today to have a great raft of amendments which are now on the table but unsupported, but they also have a completely skewed idea of what regional assemblies will be about. All their arguments today seem to have been made under a completely false flag.
	I think that these are some of—

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she understand and accept that we take a degree of comfort from the Written Answer given to her noble friend Lord Caithness as far as additional powers are concerned?

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, you may indeed. But those powers will have to come from somewhere if, indeed, they come. However, that is not exactly what is said in these words. I still believe that those words are prophetic; that they should be there; and that they give an outline to the whole of the proposals that are before us on whether a referendum is held on regional assemblies. Whether a referendum is successful on regional assemblies will depend, to a large extent, on what people understand those regional assemblies are going to do. As we have said, the Minister is always straightforward. I am prepared to accept what he says—that there will be no new powers and no new money. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 16:
	Page 2, leave out lines 31 and 32 and insert "Voters in those parts of the region are being asked a separate question about their preferred option for a single tier in their area."

Lord Rooker: My Lords, having accepted the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, providing for a second referendum question, there are certain changes that we need to make to the Bill. First, we need to provide that both questions appear on the face of the Bill and that the text of the questions and preambles reflects the new reality that, in some parts of a region, voters will be faced with two questions. Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 do that.
	The questions are, of course, inter-linked. It is important that voters understand that and, in voting for or against a regional assembly, or for a particular form of unitary local government, that they know the implications of voting in the way they do.
	Amendment No. 16 changes the preamble to the first question on regional assemblies. It makes it clear, in particular, to voters in areas that already have unitary local government, that voters in other parts of the region are being asked a separate question about local government structure. It also makes it clear to those in two-tier areas that there is a second question.
	Amendment No. 17 provides for that second question. It cannot do so in detail, as the options on which people will be asked to vote cannot be known until after the Boundary Committee has completed a local government review of the region. But it does provide for the form of the question—quite simply, that voters should be asked which of a number of options they prefer. It also provides a preamble which makes it clear that voters' choice of unitary structure will matter only if there is a "Yes" vote on the first question; and that if, following the referendum, no regional assembly is established, there will be no reorganisation of local government.
	If those amendments are accepted by the House tonight, we shall write formally to the Electoral Commission about the questions and preambles. We shall listen carefully to their views and to the views expressed in the House tonight and, if necessary, we shall come forward with amendments at Third Reading to ensure that the questions for regional and local government referendums held under these provisions are clear and intelligible.
	As I have already said, what we cannot do on the face of the Bill is to set out in detail the options with which voters will be faced in the second question. Amendment No. 17 therefore provides the Secretary of State with an order-making power, so that the detailed text of the options can be approved by Parliament before the referendum. It is highly likely, depending on the complexity of the reorganisation options, that we shall want—indeed, shall need—to make available to voters at the time that they vote a certain amount of supporting material so that they can make sense of the options they are voting on. That is not material on the conduct of the referendum, which will be provided for separately. Instead, we are talking about material relating to unitary options that we might need to make available to voters along with their postal ballots and at polling stations; for example, maps showing the various options.
	So the orders that we lay before Parliament will contain the text which will appear on the ballot paper and will detail the supporting material that will be available. Before laying such orders, we shall consult the Electoral Commission about its views on the intelligibility of the options to be inserted in the question and on the supporting material. We shall let Parliament know the views of the commission at the same time as we lay the order. These amendments are essential to the second referendum question. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister has just said that the Electoral Commission will be given the question and the preambles in order to decide whether they are sufficiently clear for a voter to understand. He also said that the supporting material would be submitted. If the supporting material is in such an advanced state, would it be possible for noble Lords to see it before Third Reading, or before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament? If what we hear is right, that there is likely to be an announcement about the soundings and about the first, second or even third parts of the country that are likely to have a referendum on the basis of the evidence so far, that must mean that the supporting material is in a fit state to be seen. Can we see some copies of that?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry; there is a misunderstanding. I am trying to speed up, but I had to stick to the wording on this point so there was no deviation.
	There are two references to consulting the Electoral Commission at different times. The second reference about consulting the commission on supporting material would apply only before we laid the order. We would have more information at that point. We are not holding anything back from the House at present. The first contact with the commission—writing to it formally subject to the progress of the Bill—relates to the questions in the preamble. It is different from consulting the commission on the intelligibility of the options to be inserted. We cannot consult the commission on that until we are ready to lay the order, which is a considerable time away. The two references to talking to the Electoral Commission involve contact separated by around 12 months.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that clarifies the matter. It makes clear that there are two separate exercises. The noble Lord also said that people would be aware of the link between the two questions, but they are two separate referenda. They are not linked in that sense. There will not be two questions on a ballot paper or in a single exercise. In what way can people be expected to understand that their vote in the second referendum has a link with the vote in the first?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, through the information that they will receive. The exercises will be carried out at the same time. The confusion is probably my fault. The noble Baroness, when she asked the question originally, seemed to imply that the ballot paper would contain the two questions. She asked about voting "Yes" in the referendum and "No" to three options, say, as though that would be counted en bloc as being part of one ballot paper. If that happened, we would get a load of ballot papers containing one "Yes" and three "No" votes. That is not the issue. There would be separate counts for the first and second questions. The linkage breaks because the votes are counted separately. I thought that that was the obvious approach. Having listened to how the noble Baroness asked the question, it is conceivable that one could have a series of ballot papers containing the two issues en bloc. It will not be done in that way. The votes will be counted separately.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, without going into the merits of Amendment No. 17, surely the wording is plain wrong. The last paragraph of subsection (2B) states:
	"There will be no reorganisation if an elected assembly is not established. Your part of the region currently has both county and district councils. You can help to decide how local authorities in your part of the region"—
	The next words should not be
	"will be reorganised into a single tier"
	but
	"should be reorganised into a single tier if there were to be an elected assembly".
	Clearly, that must follow.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry, but from what paragraph is the noble Lord quoting?

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I quote from subsection (2B) of Amendment No. 17. We are talking about what should happen if there is a vote in favour of a regional assembly. It must be wrong to say in the last paragraph of subsection (2B):
	"There will be no reorganisation if an elected assembly is not established. Your part of the region currently has both county and district councils",
	if the amendment then continues:
	"You can help to decide how local authorities in your part of the region will be reorganised into a single tier".
	The provision reads as if the die is cast. The Government mean to say, "You can help to decide how local authorities in your part of the region should be reorganised into a single tier were there to be an elected assembly".

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall take advice on that. Although the sentence,
	"There will be no reorganisation if an elected assembly is not established",
	would stand on its own at the top of page 2, as printed on the Marshalled List it is part of a paragraph.
	Clearly, it is important that people know that if there is a "No" vote in the referendum—what I shall call question 1—there will be no local government reorganisation. I made that absolutely clear. This is not a Trojan horse to get local government reorganisation.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, in that case, it should read "should".

Lord Rooker: My Lords, irrespective of what it should read, I shall take advice on the matter. It may be that that sentence should be placed elsewhere. It would probably be better if that sentence were at the end of subsection (2B), standing on its own, rather than mixed up between the first paragraph and the second. It forms part of a paragraph.
	The sentence stands on its own, and we make that clear. We must go to the Electoral Commission to consider the intelligibility of the wording and have it checked. That is the point that I make. The wording will not be rammed through. The commission has had no opportunity to be consulted.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am happy for the noble Lord to take the amendment away and examine the grammar.

Lord Rooker: Yes, of course.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Page 2, line 32, at end insert—
	"(2A) The question to be asked in a referendum in pursuance of section (Local government referendums)(2) is: "Which of the following options for single tier local government do you prefer?
	insert text of options set out in the order requiring the referendum to be held." "(2B) The following statement (in as nearly as may be the following form) must precede the question on the ballot paper used in any part of the region where a referendum is held in pursuance of an order under section (Local government referendums) (2): "If an elected assembly is established for the (insert name of region) region, it is intended that local government will be reorganised into a single tier in those parts of the region that currently have both county and district councils.
	There will be no reorganisation if an elected assembly is not established. Your part of the region currently has both county and district councils. You can help to decide how local authorities in your part of the region will be reorganised into a single tier."
	(2C) An order under section (Local government referendums)(2) must set out—
	(a) the text of the options to be inserted in the question specified in subsection (2A);
	(b) such explanatory material relating to the options as will be made available for voters at the time they vote.
	(2D) Before an order under section (Local government referendums) (2) is laid before Parliament in pursuance of section 27(2) the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission—
	(a) on the wording of the text required to be inserted in pursuance of subsection (2A);
	(b) on the explanatory material.
	(2E) At the time when the order is so laid the Secretary of State must lay before each House a report stating any views which the Commission have expressed in response to the consultation as to—
	(a) the intelligibility of the text mentioned in subsection (2D);
	(b) the explanatory material.
	(2F) Explanatory material does not include instructions to voters as to the conduct of the referendum."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Entitlement to vote]:

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: moved Amendment No. 18:
	Page 2, line 36, at end insert—
	"(1A) A person is entitled to vote in a referendum held in a county area of a region in pursuance of an order under section (Local government referendums) (2) if on the date of the referendum he is entitled to vote at the election of councillors for any electoral area in the county area."

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. The amendments are essential to give full effect to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to which the House has already agreed. Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 define the voting franchise for the second question, the question about which option for unitary local government is preferred, should an assembly be established.
	Amendment No. 18 provides that only those entitled to vote in local government elections in the county area concerned will be able to vote on the second question. So, those living in the existing unitary areas will not be able to vote on the second question.
	Amendment No. 20 provides that the phrase "county area", for the purpose of Clause 3 and the voting franchise, has the same meaning as set out in the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. In the main, a county area will be the existing area of a county council, which, of course, has both district councils and a county council. Subsection (4) recognises that some of the proposed options for single-tier authorities may mean reorganisation across county council boundaries. In such a case, for the purposes of this Bill, all county areas affected may be combined into a single county area. Voters in the combined area will vote in a common referendum on the local government structure of the combined county areas.
	If the Government's proposals for local government reorganisation include an option that spans county boundaries, the county area is the combined area of each of those county areas. So, voters in the combined area will vote in a common referendum on the local government structure of the combined county areas.
	Amendment No. 19 is consequential on Amendment No. 18, so that subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 3 apply to regional referendums and local government referendums. Subsection (2) enables provision to be made by the Secretary of State in regulations for disregarding alterations made after a specified date in a register of electors.
	I know from previous debates that many of your Lordships agree that only those living in the areas that should be affected by local government reorganisation should be able to vote on the matter. I hope that your Lordships will see the need for the amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, as the amendments relate to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am astonished that she has not risen to speak. As regards the question of whether those who live in the county and districts should be those entitled to vote in the election, I remain of the same view. We are in a difficult area, but, if we must carry on with this farce, I support the proposal that the only people who should be able to vote are council electors.
	The concern that the county and district areas will be overwhelmed by the metropolitan areas relates to the first question, not the second. The question is whether a regional government could be forced on those in county and rural areas by the metropolitan areas, as a result of a vote on the referendum. The second question, drummed up by the Liberal Democrats, does not solve their problem, which they dealt with in Committee. It may respond to the Government's, but it does not respond to theirs. That is one of the reasons why I was very surprised to see the amendments that had been put forward. Those are my observations if we have to go ahead with this charade. I do not think I can add any more.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, perhaps I can help the noble Baroness. For people living in Berwick-upon-Tweed, as I do, if under the original system there had been a vote in a regional referendum, then all the people in the unitaries would have voted, and they would not have cared two hoots what reorganisation of government we had had in our area. Now, the people in Berwick-on-Tweed may have two or three options upon which they can personally vote in their area. Nobody in Newcastle is telling them that that is the sort of reorganisation that they have to have in local government.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for explaining that rather more clearly than I could have done.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: moved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20:
	Page 2, line 37, leave out "subsection (1) is" and insert "subsections (1) and (1A) are"
	Page 3, line 3, at end insert—
	"( ) County area must be construed in accordance with section (Local government referendums)."
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 5 [Referendums: frequency]:

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 21:
	Page 3, line 9, leave out "This section" and insert "Subsection (2)"

Lord Rooker: My Lords, this group of amendments relate to the question of what happens in the event of a successful legal challenge to a local government referendum. Amendments Nos. 21 and 23 relate to Clause 5. Amendment 23 provides that if there were to be a successful challenge about the result of a local government referendum, then the Secretary of State would be able to order a repeat local government referendum to be held. However, a repeat regional referendum would not necessarily have to be held at the same time.
	For example, it is possible to envisage a situation where the local government referendum in one county area is successfully challenged—but the overall results of the regional referendum is not in doubt because there is a majority in favour. However, the amendment would not allow a repeat regional referendum without local government referendums at the same time. That is because we believe that if there is a doubt about the outcome of what I will call referendum one, the key referendum, held across the whole region, there must also be doubt about the results of the local government referendums in parts of that region.
	Subsections (3B), (3C), and (3F) of Amendment No. 23 ensure that the proposals set out in the Bill regarding local government referendums would apply to any such repeat referendums. Subsection (3D), however, only requires the Electoral Commission to comment on the intelligibility of the referendum question, or on the explanatory material provided for voters if they are different from the versions it commented on when the order for the original referendum was made. Subsection (3E) enables the order for a repeat local government referendum to be varied or revoked if the Secretary of State thinks that it is not appropriate for the referendum to be held on the date specified in the order.
	Amendment No. 21 is consequential on Amendment No. 23. Amendments Nos. 38 and 40 relate to Clause 10. Together they ensure that the existing Clause 10 provisions also apply to local government referendums. I urge noble Lords to support these important and necessary amendments. They are absolutely fundamental to the changes that have taken place in the Bill. Having moved Amendment No. 21, I will move the other amendments in their appropriate places.
	I am trying to save time and not repeat myself. I also want to enable a better understanding of this group of amendments. The implication of what I have said is that issues can be challenged in court. In our debate on Clause 10, the ouster clause, a view was taken that that might not be possible—although I said that it was up to the courts. There is no doubt that this is a complex legal area. We do not believe that the courts will remove themselves from examining serious challenges, but it is true that Clause 10 looks like a blanket ban, as we discussed in Committee. We shall therefore come back at Third Reading with an amendment relating not only to fraud, the subject of our debate in Committee, but to the type of legal challenges that can be made and the type of court which will have jurisdiction and/or a time limit for bringing proceedings.
	Given the wider changes that the House has agreed today, it is important to make that point about Clause 10, although we have not yet reached it, on the basis of my comments on other amendments and on court challenges. At Third Reading, I shall put forward a government amendment to Clause 10. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wish no disrespect to the Minister, but what he read and said in his extemporaneous comments is about as clear as mud. I spent a good deal of the weekend looking over this set of amendments and I intend to send it to the Plain English Campaign. I have never read such legal gobbledegook in my life.
	I shall quote from just one paragraph. Subsection (3A) states:
	XIf an order is made under subsection (3B) any reference in this Act to a referendum held in pursuance of an order under section (Local government referendums) (2) or to the order must be construed as a reference to a referendum held in pursuance of an order under subsection (3B) or to the order under that subsection (as the case may be).
	I do not know what that means. I read it, re-read it and applied it to the Bill. I am afraid that I did not understand it.
	If the Minister is still telling me that the words on the page in Clause 10 state:
	"No court shall entertain any proceedings",
	I take it literally that no court shall entertain any proceedings for those purposes. Therefore, when the Minister tables these amendments and says that they invalidate our understanding of Clause 10 and that the courts will be able to entertain proceedings of some or all complaints, I need a better explanation than the one he has just given.
	The Minister spoke of challenges to the local government elections, but there may also be challenges to the assembly elections. It is not inconceivable that there is a challenge to the part of the referendum relating to soundings or the regional assembly elections. Given that we are told by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that there are two separate referendums in order to establish answers to the two different questions—albeit that they may take place on the same day—it is possible that either or both will be challenged. They may be challenged in a particular electoral area, or throughout the whole regional area, or co-operatively or separately, but that there may be a challenge is beyond doubt. To date, there have been challenges in local and national government and European elections.
	I do not understand what is proposed in the Marshalled List, nor do I understand what the Minister said in his explanation. We are fortunate in having Explanatory Notes to the Bill, but we are unfortunate in having no explanatory notes of these amendments. As regards their knock-on effect to Clause 10, I really do not understand that.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene on that point. There appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. Clause 10, the ouster clause, which has appeared in all the other Bills, applies only to referendums. It has nothing to do with the elections of people. The noble Baroness referred to assembly elections, which concern people being elected. First, under election law, there is a normal process for any challenge to election proceedings. Secondly, a separate Bill will come to the House. Thus for the noble Baroness to join up her fair argument and dispute over the ouster clause with the assembly elections has got to be a non starter. The ouster clause is unique to referendums for the reasons I have already explained and the reasons set out by other Ministers when the other Bills were debated.
	Results from referendums bring up certain consequences; namely, the setting up of new bodies, the introduction of legislation and so forth. So there is no connection whatever between Clause 10, the ouster clause, and what might happen in the elections to the assembly. This is unique to referendums.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it was the noble Lord who introduced the connection between the amendments and Clause 10, not I. I did not understand what the noble Lord was saying. I have read Clause 10 a number of times and it certainly does say that:
	XNo court shall entertain any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot papers . . . in a referendum".
	However, when the noble Lord left his briefing notes behind and began to extemporise, he made a read-across to Clause 10. I wondered what on earth that meant.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry, but I did not do that. I said that Amendments Nos. 38 and 40 relate to Clause 10. Together they ensure that the existing provisions in Clause 10 also apply to local government referendums. We have to ensure that the ouster clause covers the referendums; namely, the second question to be put covering the nature of the choice of the form of local government. That is the point I sought to make.
	I was trying to be helpful. I indicated that, having looked at Clause 10 to ensure its clarity, we are looking to bring forward further clarification at Third Reading. As I have said, I was seeking to be helpful and to meet the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness. By the way, it will be much better when the Bill has been reprinted, incorporating the amendments.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am sure that a further amendment at Third Reading will be helpful. I must say that I should like to have the opportunity of buying tickets for the forthcoming sparring match between the Minister and the parliamentary draftsman, who no doubt will say that we cannot change wording that we have used before because it has established meanings and so forth. Nevertheless, it will be helpful to have further clarification.
	As I understand the position, it is not possible to oust the court's jurisdiction entirely. At the previous stage we referred to fraud, bad faith, the requirements of natural justice and so forth. No doubt we shall come back to the matter, but I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will do what he can to clarify these points.
	It is important that the wording in the Bill is as clear as possible. I did not have quite as much difficulty with Amendment No. 23 as appears to have been the case for the noble Baroness—perhaps I did not read it often enough—but that may simply reflect a lifetime of bad drafting on my part.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am glad that I am not the only one who found it difficult to understand these amendments. While the Minister clarified some of my concerns in the course of his remarks, obviously one must then read them in the written word, and I know that we shall return to the matter at Third Reading. I look forward also to seeing at that stage the further clarificatory amendments.
	Can the Minister clarify a point for me with regard to new subsections (3B) and (3E) in Amendment No. 23? Under the terms of subsection (3B) the Secretary of State may make another order and set a date for a further referendum, while under the provisions of subsection (3E), he could wake up the next day and say, "I did not like that date very much. I shall change it". First, under what circumstances can he change the date, and who does he have to account to for such a change? Secondly, would the Minister refresh my memory on the time-scale between making an order and the date of the referendum? What period are we looking at for the Deputy Prime Minister to change his mind under the terms of subsection (3B)?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I shall have to take advice on that. As I understand it, 10 to 12 weeks is the period of the referendum campaign—the campaign to the start of the poll—but I shall have to take advice on that.
	There would have to be good reason for changing a date that had been specified in an order. That might be if there was a parliamentary by-election in an area and it was thought to be inappropriate to mix the two together, or that it was appropriate to arrange the two elections so that people did not have to go to the polls on two consecutive weeks. Such things may occur outwith the normal processes. A good reason would have to be given for such a change of date, but that flexibility for convenience exists in current legislation for other elections.
	In connection with another Bill, we are changing the date for next year's local government elections so that they coincide with the European parliamentary elections—just for convenience, so that the public are not asked to vote twice in a month but can vote for both on the same day.
	However, I think that the period between the order and the referendum was fairly lengthy—from memory, from debate in Committee, I think that it is about 10 weeks. While I am on my feet—I should like to go home soon—I should like confirmation that the noble Earl has received the Parliamentary Answer that I said that we would not adjourn without; I shall not adjourn the House until he receives it.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may respond to the Minister: no, I have not yet received the Answer, but he has my permission to adjourn the House if he so wishes, provided that I receive it first thing tomorrow morning.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 3, line 15, leave out "five" and insert "ten"

Baroness Blatch: My noble friend Lord Hanningfield was to move Amendment No. 22, but has gone away poorly this evening, so I stand in for him. We discussed the issue in Committee and feel strongly about it. We know that if a referendum takes place and is lost, but only marginally, it will be tempting for the Government to want to rerun the exercise. We also know the laborious nature of the exercise which, as the noble Lord has told us several times—and we take him at his word—will take a long time. The soundings exercise takes quite a time, followed by the Boundary Committee exercise, which takes even longer, and there is then the production of all the materials.
	The Boundary Committee exercise cannot simply be rerun as it was the first time around; it will be an entirely separate exercise and so must all be done again. If a referendum can be held five years to the day after the first referendum, activity to enable the second referendum might need to begin about two years after the first one.
	Earlier, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spoke about the uncertainty and real anxiety felt by employees of local authorities—district and county councils—during such exercises especially when, as now, there will be two or three options. Every conceivable permutation of whether the counties or districts go, whether some districts are merged or some county councils are merged with districts, must be covered. Whatever may be the configuration for local government reorganisation, at least leading up to the first referendum, that will provide about two and a half years of uncertainty.
	We already know that nerves are jangling in the North East at the thought that the Secretary of State may name it as the first area. We know, too, that people who are thinking of applying for posts there are wary of doing so until they know exactly what will happen. Once that call has been made and the referendum is set in train, there is a period of about two and a half years of serious tension while all the work is carried out. At the end of that period is a referendum, which may be lost, and that is the point of my amendment.
	If, at the end of that time, the referendum is lost, whether by a small margin or a reasonably healthy majority, it is still possible for a future Secretary of State, or even the same one, to say that he would like to start the exercise again. To allow for a referendum to take place within five years of the first date, there would be a respite of no more than two to two and a half years before the whole thing started again. I really believe that is unhealthy and would like to think that even the Liberal Democrats would agree. An area could have gone through the nervous tension this exercise entails, only to vote "No", and could then find that it was being revisited. After all, the Government have specified five years for a reason—it allows for a revisitation within a very short time of the referendum being determined. I believe it would be almost immoral to do that to any region of our country. I beg to move.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is one of the most important on the Marshalled List. I do so not with any detailed knowledge of the sharp end of local government reorganisation. However, having listened in Committee to those who are actively involved in local government and have been through the process of reform, I have been convinced that, as my noble friend Lady Blatch has said, there is a long period of anxiety and concern when the local government focus is not on providing services for local people but on fighting one's corner to protect one's job, or other people's jobs, and not concentrating on the main issues.
	We discussed this at length in Committee. There was some dispute as to whether it was the making of the order or the referendums. What is clear now is that it is five years between referendums. Therefore, one has only a short period of stability of, say, two to three years maximum, before a further referendum can be called by the laying of an order. I believe that to be too short a period. I am sad that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is not in her place on the Liberal Benches. She spoke about the concerns on this matter, as did my noble friend Lord Hanningfield. I hope that the Minister, who I thought had some sympathy with our point in Committee, would have given this further thought by now. We need to return to this on Third Reading if we do not deal with it now.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Blatch and my noble friend Lord Caithness, but with a further dimension. It was always said in terms of unspoken contracts in particular areas of employment that, until the 1970s, if you were a banker, because you were absolutely confident you would keep your job until you retired, you were prepared to settle for a more modest salary than might have been the case in more risky employment. It sounds as though the proposition before us, to which my noble friends have spoken, carries a different consequence. I am not arguing that local government officers are better paid or less well paid than anyone else, but the one certain thing, as sure as God made little apples, is that if a high degree of uncertainty is introduced into their career pattern, it is likely that, in order for people to work in those jobs, the salaries demanded will rise.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. There is no question that five years is much too short a time. What concerns me is that governments, whether of this country or of Denmark or the Republic of Ireland, for example, never want to take no for an answer. If the people vote "No" and the government want them to vote "Yes", the government say, "We'll keep on having referendums until you do as we want". That is the problem with this provision in the Bill.
	There is no provision for people, once they have said "Yes", to go back and say "No". There is provision only for people to say "Yes". Five years is far too short a period between referendums to enable people to understand what is happening. I also believe that people sometimes vote for things on the basis of what they are told, and on propaganda, which may not always be true. They trust other people, particularly governments—they tend to trust governments. When governments say, "Regional government is good for you", they tend to agree and vote "Yes". But when they have the experience and see how the regional authority is working and that more money is being taken from them, that the salaries of the new regional representatives are higher than they believed they would be and that there has been absolutely no benefit and perhaps much deficit from the new regional authorities, they may want to go back. But there is no provision for that in the Bill, which is why I support the amendment.
	I do not know whether the amendment will go through tonight. If it is not, perhaps it could be brought back at Third Reading.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in my experience, the greatest stress for staff in local government in the past several years has come not so much from uncertainty about structural change, except for the executive scrutiny split—it has always concerned me that that has a knock-on effect on how officers feel about their powers—but principally from the loss of powers to local government over many years. Changes occur all the time.
	I share the concerns expressed about the effect on staff. However, I do not suppose that the Government would want the grief of going for a second order if they believe that they will lose again. I am sure that the Minister could address that point more forcefully and clearly than I have done. Things may happen during a short period of time. One region may see that there are benefits in a nearby region. One has to bear that in mind. Also, if the possible boundary changes that we have discussed come on offer, that could make a considerable difference to how voters in a region regard the proposition.
	I hope that the Minister can respond on those issues. The points that noble Lords have raised are genuine enough, although when we started today's debate I made the point that we approach questions from a different perspective from that of our colleagues on the Conservative Benches.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I want to address the employment aspect of the amendment. The loss of powers to local government, while significant, is a perennial worry that concerns everyone, whether a member or an officer, in local government. Whatever the realities of the situation, the fact is that local government's independence and authority have been constantly eroded for a very long time. That is a matter of immense regret. If one could see a reversal of that trend it would be a very good thing. We are dealing here with the possibility of change. If the change does not happen, let us say next year, the process can be revived again within five years.
	My experience goes back to 1967 when a Royal Commission on the structure of local government was established. From that moment on, a dedicated team of the best intellectual brains in the local authority with which I was concerned—Essex County Council—worked to provide evidence to the Royal Commission to maintain the status quo. The process took 18 months or two years. The Royal Commission then produced its report, the consequences of which were recommendations for drastically radical change. My noble friend Lord Brooke may well remember that period. The proposals for change in 1972 were implemented in 1973. The whole process took five years and, throughout that time, there was foment wherever there was two-tier county and district local government.
	We are now proposing to introduce a state of permanent foment unless the electorate succumb at the first bite. It will not be good for the provision of services to the public if the best intellectual strengths of any local authority are not certain of what they are doing. Instead of devoting their efforts to improving the services that they are properly required to provide to the people of the area they serve, they will be looking over their shoulder and either trying to defend their position or to see how they can improve their position in the event of change. It does not matter which way round it is, this uncertainty will detract from the provision of services to the public that the authorities are established to provide. That is a significant aspect of the Bill.
	With a five year rotation, as the Bill presently proposes, people will suffer most in those swathes of the country—the shire areas—where there are county and district councils. Their services will not improve in the way that they would improve if that distraction were not there. I cannot support the five-year proposal. A ten-year proposal is better, but I would prefer an even longer interval.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend behind me has reminded me of another sequence of dates where uncertainty existed. We do not want to create uncertainty—I am sure that we will not do so—but I am reminded of what happened to the metropolitan counties. There were elections in 1972; they were introduced in shadow form in 1973 and came into force in 1974. The Tories then fought a general election in 1979 on a plan to abolish them. I cannot remember the exact date in the mid 1980s when they finally went, but there was a considerable degree of uncertainty after the 1979 election because the plan took some years to carry through.
	That does not mean to say that two blacks make a white. We are not going to go down that road. We must be absolutely clear what we are talking about. The amendment refers to a region where there has been a "No" vote. We are not talking about regions which will not go ahead with an assembly, let us say, after the first soundings. I do not know what the gaps will be but, obviously, if the first soundings produce a referendum or two and one of them is successful, a Bill will be brought in anyway. An assembly will not be up and running immediately. Other regions will not be able to see how it is working until it is up and running. We have said that we would not be able to deal with too many referendums at the same time.
	We are talking here about a situation where soundings have been taken, a judgment has been reached that a degree of interest was shown in a referendum on local government but there was a no vote. Such a situation would be traumatic. I can envisage the headlines in the next day's papers now.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords—

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have not started yet, but go on.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was precisely my case. I made no case for the "Yes" vote. I said that my amendment referred only to a "No" vote. Therefore, this discussion is otiose.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, six speakers have addressed the matter. There were references to the other regions. I want to make clear that I am responding to the amendment to which the noble Baroness spoke.
	I understand that exactly the same amendment has been dealt with in another place. I do not have any new arguments. However, we do not want uncertainty to arise. We would not wish to incur the excessive costs involved in holding many referendums, particularly in areas where there had previously been a no vote. Views may change over time as areas that voted "No" see what is happening in areas that voted "Yes". However, I do not know whether that will be the case.
	Under the Bill once the five-year period has elapsed, a second referendum can take place where soundings have again been taken to test the level of interest in a subsequent referendum. The five-year period is a minimum period; it is not a requirement. The noble Baroness referred to a period of five years exactly to the day of the previous referendum. That is inconceivable.
	A noble Lord—I forget who is was as I did not write down his name—mentioned uncertainty after a period of two to three years. A second referendum cannot take place within a five-year period where there has been a no vote. We are committed to taking soundings. For a second referendum to take place, the soundings would have to be more decisive than the soundings that triggered the first referendum.
	Speaking from memory, I believe that the soundings started in December and continued until March, although they are still open while the Bill is proceeding through Parliament. It would be wholly unreasonable to start taking soundings after two or three years as a second referendum could not take place within the five-year period. One would need to be at the four and a half years point at a minimum—that is allowing six months for soundings—before one could hold a referendum bang at the end of the five-year period, or thereabouts. That might be held to be unreasonable in some circumstances. Nevertheless, it might happen. However, the soundings are the key to the matter. As I say, to trigger a second referendum they would have to be more decisive than the initial soundings. It would be terrible to get a yes vote according to soundings and another "No" vote in a subsequent referendum.
	Let us say that one allows six months for soundings. In a period of four and a half years after the first referendum took place there cannot be any conceivable worries and doubts other than those that exist anyway as in that period there could be a change of government, in which case everything could change. One cannot argue that there is never anxiety about jobs in the public sector. It is usually the top dogs who are most worried as they get the cream when reorganisations take place. However, I do not want to start a debate on that matter at quarter past ten at night.
	During that four and a half year period there could be a change of government. A new government with different policies could take office. What is the difference between the doubt and uncertainty that people experience in that period and that which they experience anyway? That doubt is always there with regard to an organisation that is run by people who hold elective office. That is inevitable.
	The idea that further soundings on a subsequent referendum could start after two to three years is nonsense. Pol Pot talked of constant revolution. We are not proposing revolution for a start and we are not proposing constant change. Therefore, if the soundings took six months as opposed to three months, nothing could happen for four and a half years. As I say, in four and a half years there could be a change of government with all the doubt, upset and worry or joy that that can bring, depending on whether one is on the winning side.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes light of the matter. Something like three-quarters of what he had to say was, "Oh, it's unlikely that this would happen. If there were a 'No' vote, would anyone come around? Would we go through it again? What pain there would be if we went through all of the work to end up with a 'No' vote". We have made those arguments all the way through our proceedings on the Bill.
	It is only a matter of hours ago that the Government and the Liberal Democrats refused to accept a referendum taking place on the basis of evidence suggesting that there was the probability of a "Yes" vote. In other words, it would be responsible of the Secretary of State to take the view that, on the basis of the soundings, there was not just a level of interest, wholly undefined—it could be little or nothing—but a level of interest that suggested that if people went ahead with a referendum there was likely to be a "Yes" vote. The Government have set their face against that, so we are back to not knowing what a degree of interest—the noble Lord used those words—or a level of interest would be. We are still at odds over that.
	The noble Lord will at least admit that activities in that fourth year would have to take place ahead of a referendum. He said that everything was unlikely to take place within five years. If so, what have the Government to worry about? What is the worry about an extension? Perhaps 10 years is simply too long between referendums, so seven years might be better. Four years in the life of a local government is not very long. It is almost a parliament, as the noble Lord said, and governments come and go, which makes things even more uncertain. If he is right that there will not be an assembly up and running until 2006, there will be a general election before that, which will create its own uncertainties.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was partly sympathetic to what we said, but said that in her view the greatest worry to local authorities was about their powers. Using previous local government reorganisation examples, probably we should all learn the lesson that the tensions created are about jobs, and not only the top jobs. A very sophisticated network operates for the top jobs, but it is the people in the middle band of workers who have great difficulty.
	We know that regional assemblies will be centred on headquarters hundreds of miles from some of the present local authority workmen and women, whether they work for district or county councils and depending on the shape of the reorganisation. We know in purely logistical terms that thousands of people will be affected, whether in the area with 8.5 million people or the area with only 2.5 million. The landmasses in some of the areas are very considerable, and the sheer logistics will make it impossible for people to find similar jobs.
	One really has to think of the scale of the problem. As we have said, it is likely that counties are more vulnerable than district councils, although there could be some very large merging operations between district councils. We are talking about very large numbers of people. I will not use the area that I know best specifically, because the noble Lord will say that he does not want to talk about individual areas; I simply use it as an example. If six county councils were to go in eastern England, the job losses would be huge. The upheaval would be huge. The passing-down of the functions of the county council to the districts would be very considerable.
	The noble Lord will not be able to answer this point, because it is too hypothetical and he will probably say that my imagination is rather too fertile. We know that planning is already going—that is a free-standing operation coming through in a separate Bill. It is not unthinkable that education will go too, to the learning and skills councils. It is an easy move, much easier than the complexity of giving it to the unitary authorities—the district councils. The county councils would therefore wither on the vine. One can foresee some of the consequences of this legislation. The Bill will trigger enormous concerns in local authorities, particularly in county authorities.
	I think that the gap is too small. Although I shall think again about whether 10 years is too long, I believe that five years is too short. I think that it would be almost immoral for activity to take place in that fourth year. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 23:
	Page 3, line 20, at end insert—
	"(3A) Subsection (3B) applies if in any proceedings any certificate given by a person appointed for the purpose as to the number of votes cast in favour of any option in a referendum held in pursuance of an order under section (Local government referendums) (2) is declared or held to be invalid.
	(3B) The Secretary of State may by order cause a further referendum to be held as mentioned in that section and for that purpose the following provisions of section (Local government referendums) apply as they apply for the purpose of an order made under section (Local government referendums) (2)—
	(a) subsections (3) to (5);
	(b) subsection (6)(a);
	(c) subsections (9) and (10).
	(3C) If an order is made under subsection (3B) any reference in this Act to a referendum held in pursuance of an order under section (Local government referendums) (2) or to the order must be construed as a reference to a referendum held in pursuance of an order under subsection (3B) or to the order under that subsection (as the case may be).
	(3D) But subsection (3C) applies to such a reference in section 2(2D) and (2E) only to the extent that the wording of the text mentioned in section 2(2D)(a) or the explanatory material differs from that considered by the Electoral Commission for the purposes of the referendum held in pursuance of the order under section (Local government referendums) (2).
	(3E) The Secretary of State may by order vary or revoke an order made under subsection (3B) if he thinks that it is not appropriate for the referendum to be held on the date specified in the order.
	(3F) Explanatory material must be construed in accordance with section 2."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past ten o'clock.